White People: - “Black people are always pulling the race card!”
tw: racism, slavery, torture
George Washington’s dentures, ca. 1780s
More than his teeth were false, as Michael Coard and others have documented:
Although Washington considered his enslaved black workers unworthy of proper clothing (among other items), he certainly found their teeth quite worthy, so much so that he replaced a number of his unhealthy teeth with their healthy teeth, to his mouth from their mouths. While schoolchildren often were taught and sometimes still are taught about his wooden teeth — a story based on myth, they never were taught about his “slave” teeth — a story based on truth…Instead of (or in addition to) wooden teeth or standard dentures, Washington had teeth that actually were “yanked from the heads of his slaves and fitted into his dentures… [and also] apparently had slaves’ teeth transplanted into his own jaw in 1784…”
Clarence Lusane zooms out:
The White House itself, the home of presidents and quintessential symbol of the U.S. presidency, was built with slave labor, just like most other major building projects had been in the 18th-century United States…President Washington initially wanted to hire foreign labor to build the White House, but when he realized how costly it would be to pay people fairly, he resorted to slave labor…
While professing to abhor slavery and hope for its eventual demise, as president Washington…did everything he could to ensure that not one of the more than 300 people he owned could secure their freedom. During the 10 years of construction of the White House, George Washington spent time in Philadelphia where a law called the Gradual Abolition Act passed in 1780. It stated that any slaves brought into the state were eligible to apply for their freedom if they were there for longer than six months. To get around the law, Washington rotated the people working for him in bondage so that they were there for less than six months each.
Scumbag of the day: founding fucking fathers edition
W H AT THE FUCK
is this for real?
I’m just a 14 year old white girl I’m not a terrorist
hope they got Starbucks in Maximum Security
Port Jackson Painter
Native Men and Women of Australia Encounter British Colonists at Sea
England (c. 1790)
London, Natural History Museum
I encourage everyone to take note that this work is in the Natural History Museum, along with drawings of plants and animals indigenous to Australia.
I highly encourage readers to heed the words of Linda Burney, a Native Australian and Minister of Fair Trading:
Linda Burney remembers her childhood well - those days when she was counted among the nation’s wildlife.
"This is not ancient history," says the state’s first Aboriginal minister. "I was a child. It still staggers me that for the first 10 years of my life, I existed under the Flora and Fauna Act of NSW."
In a speech in Wagga Wagga on the tribal land of her Wiradjuri nation, Ms Burney said the anniversary should serve as a “call to arms” to reverse the roll-back of Aboriginal reconciliation by the Prime Minister, John Howard.
"The truth is this," she said. "We are not all equal. And we are not all mates … It is almost impossible to put into words the distress being felt at the roll-back in Aboriginal affairs. Not least because you think of all those people who gave so much."
Ms Burney remembered being taught as a 13-year-old that “my people were savages and the closest example to Stone Age man living today”.
"I vividly recall wanting to turn into a piece of paper and slip quietly through the crack in the floor," she said. "Growing up as an Aboriginal child, looking into the mirror of our country … your reflection was at best distorted and at worst non-existent."
Ms Burney also attacked the Federal Government’s policies on native title and the stolen generations, which she said had a whiff of “paternalism” and “social engineering”. Her speech, at an anniversary celebration on Monday, received a standing ovation.
Works of art depicting Indigenous peoples do not belong in natural history museums. Works of art created by Indigenous peoples do not belong in natural history museums. We are not animals.
This is very important
I can’t believe that it’s allowable to have such a RACIST and CONDESCENDING news report. I already knew CNN was a joke and never liked their reporting but this really is disgusting. I’ve been living in New Zealand for 5 years now, the Maori culture here is pervasive, rich and beautiful and this whole report ignores that, pokes fun at it and is highly disrespectful.
Please sign the petition for CNN to issue a formal apology.
Just to confirm that this is real, here is the link to the video on CNN’s website. Thank you all for your support. <3
WHAT THE FUCK this is super ignorant, and belittling to other cultures traditions
are you fucking kidding me
OH MY GOD ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME IT KEEPS GETTING WORSE AND WORSE.
THEY COMPARE THEM TO ANIMALS WOW.
There were three sorts of Dornishmen, the first King Daeron had observed. There were the salty Dornishmen who lived along the coasts, the sandy Dornishmen of the deserts and long river valleys, and the stony Dornishmen who made their fastnesses in the passes and heights of the Red Mountains. The salty Domishmen had the most Rhoynish blood, the stony Dornishmen the least.
All three one sorts seemed well represented in Doran’s retinue. The salty Dornishmen were
lithe and darkwhite as fuck, with smooth olivepale ass skin and long black hairracist turbans streaming in the wind. The sandy Dornishmen were even darkerwhiter, their faces burned brownwhite by the hot Dornish sun. They wound long bright scarfs around their helms to ward off sunstroke. The stony Dornishmen were biggest and fairest (finally some more white people up in here), sons of the Andals and the First Men, brownhaired or blond, with faces that freckled or burned in the sun instead of browning.
The lords wore silk and satin robes with jeweled belts and flowing sleeves. Their armor was heavily enameled and inlaid with burnished copper, shining silver, and soft red gold. They came astride red horses and golden ones and a few as pale as snow, all slim and swift, with long necks and narrow beautiful heads. The fabled sand steeds of Dorne were smaller than proper warhorses and could not bear such weight of armor, but it was said that they could run for a day and night and another day, and never tire.
#i took some liberty and corrected the shitty book version to make it into the vastly superior david&dan version #thank you for your time #who needs representation anyways since we all can see how spanish/italian inspired dorne obviously is
Thank you for this great gifset contrasted with the original text description of the Dornishmen. I think just about everyone was fairly disappointed in the casting here. It shouldn’t have to be pointed out that:
1. the books (ASOIAF) are not accurate to history in a general sense
2. the books are not accurate to history in the sense of dragons and magic
3. the show (Game of Thrones) is not accurate to the books in terms of people and casting as the characters are described, in many ways that do a disservice to people of color
4. this is inarguable whitewashing, and I do not generally use that term very often.
Once more, I’ll point out that Fantasy is not History. Once again, I’ll point out that whether or not Dorne is supposed to be ‘inspired by’ Medieval Spain or Italy, this is still inaccurate.
And a final reminder: These books and the show based on it were created on purpose by human beings for an audience-both of whom are modern people and part of American culture, right here, right now. The choices made, the casting, the storylines and plot points, all are conscious decisions made by people. Game of Thrones isn’t history, it is a fantasy show.
P.S. I personally am a fan of the show and the books, I have seen every episode and read every book, including some of the short fiction (so no worries about spoiling me). I don’t feel particularly conflicted in being critical of it, or analyzing it.
can someone tell me why turbans are racist? isnt that a thing that people who live in very dry and hot climates wear? (and sometimes for religious reasons) isnt dorne really hot and dry? i mean, pretty much all of them should be way darker in skin tone but i dont know why turbans are racist… if there is a reason hmu with that knowledge.
Since you apparently haven’t considered taking someone who is harmed by tropes like these at their word that they ARE, in fact, harmed by it, I’ll go ahead and give you a source you might actually accept. This is on the condition that maybe you consider who you think gets to “decide” what is and is not racism, and who you believe is harmed by depictions like this in popular fantasy media.
A turban is often used as a lazy way to visually “Other” a character in American popular culture. This trope has a long history of use in Western cultures to mark someone as “foreign” in a very general sort of way. In fantasy media, it’s often used as a symbol of “generic Other”, along with “generic foreign accent” and other vaguely referential markers, while at the same time ducking accountability by being nonspecific.
From Geographies of Developing Areas: The Global South in a Changing World By Glyn Williams, Paula Meth, Katie Willis. page 28.
Further Reading and Perspectives:
- What Is Orientalism?
- Orientalism, Edward Said (1977)
- Orientalism in American Popular Culture by Naomi Rosenblatt. (Penn History Review, Vol. 16, Iss. 2 , Art. 5)
- The “Other” Histories of Fantasy and Fantasy’s “Othering” Fetish by Phenderson Djèlí Clark. (discusses Got and ASOIAF specifically; comparisons to the genre’s history)
- [medievalpoc] notes on race versus clothing as a mark of the “Other” in European art history
- The Turban is not a Hat: Queer Diaspora and Practices of Profiling by Jasbir K. Puar. Sikh Formations, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2008, pp. 47-91. [screenreader inaccessible photocopy/image]
Scarlett Johansson stars in the sci-fi film Lucy, a story about a white woman in Taiwan for some reason who suffers medical violence from savage Asians and is only important because of the research of a professor of color.
“A woman, accidentally caught in a dark deal, turns the tables on her captors and transforms into a merciless warrior evolved beyond human logic.”
"Lucy is set in a world that is run by the mob, street gangs, drug addicts and corrupt cops. Lucy (Scarlett Johansson), a woman living in Taipei, Taiwan, is forced to work as a drug mule for the mob. The drug implanted in her body inadvertently leaks into her system, changing her into a superhuman. She can absorb knowledge instantaneously, is able to move objects with her mind and can’t feel pain and other discomforts."
凸(｀△´＋） 凸(｀△´＋） 凸(｀△´＋）凸(｀△´＋） 凸(｀△´＋） 凸(｀△´＋）凸(｀△´＋） 凸(｀△´＋） 凸(｀△´＋）凸(｀△´＋） 凸(｀△´＋） 凸(｀△´＋）凸(｀△´＋） 凸(｀△´＋） 凸(｀△´＋）凸(｀△´＋） 凸(｀△´＋） 凸(｀△´＋）
Wow fuck you
oh my god this makes me so mad I can’t
in the trailer there’s a scene where she asks a taiwanese man if he speaks english and when he says no she literally kills him on the spot. but ~girl power~, right? it’s disgusting
Yay…justification for linguistic imperialism…
the Clue Klux Klan…solving mysteries in a racist sort of way
i think you mean “the police department”
Are these sculptures of roman citizens or slaves?
The association of Black people with enslavement is an entirely modern invention, as in, chattel slavery in the…
Regarding the whole ‘men hunted, women gave birth’ thing (and wildly off topic from racism in classical Rome, sorry), it is looking increasingly like a load of nonsense (no surprise).
There are prehistoric hunting scenes showing hunts which (probably *1) show women hunting for one thing and despite this male researcers still declares that men hunted and men created these hunting scenes and were also the first artists. But now we know that these hunting scenes not only show women hunting in some cases but WERE PRODUCED BY WOMEN primarily!
So what evidence for male = hunter is there?
When you look at the evidence for male hunters you have gender bias (men obviously hunted because men hunt now), gender essentialism (men hunted because they had less body fat and didn’t need to produce babies and Reasons) and ethnographic evidence (indigenous Australian hunters were solely male in the 19th-20th centuries).
We assume that because violent activities today are associated with men while women nurtured young that has always been the way. We also assume that women who were not pregnant would be compelled to behave in the same way as women who were pregnant/looking after children. It also assumes that hunting was much more dangerous than it probably was, hunters were often as much scavengers as far as we can tell from archaeological evidence of kill sites and often employed tactics like driving pray off cliffs to die or into dead ends were they could be picked off more safely. That isn’t to say it was completely safe of course. But who is to say gathering was necessarily safe in an age where a simple cut could result in death from infection and there were no anti-bodies for the admittedly few venomous creatures in Europe or that the gatherers would be free from the attentions of now extinct predators.
Much of the ethnographic evidence comes either from African nomadic peoples which have still had thousands of years of contact with patriarchal cultures or Australian Aboriginal and Papua New Guinean groups. The ethnographic observations were made in the 19th and 20th centuries and are deeply racist because they were based on the assumption that these cultures were primitive and unchanging since settlement of Sahul (Australia + New Guinea when they were connected) 50,000 years ago! We know, for example, in the early nineteenth century the power structure of Australian indigenous populations shifted in favour of young men after various epidemics killed 90% of the Aboriginal population in the space of 50 years or thereabout (something we never learnt in school, funnily enough). We do not know who hunted prior to European colonisation of Australia. We guess and the further back in time you go the more problematic that becomes because the hundreds at least indigenous cultures in Australia have all evolved over time just like any other culture.
IF we accept the creators of the hunting scenes across Europe were hunters themselves then we have to accept that women were as likely to be hunters as men. If we do not want to accept that the people who made the art were hunters then we have no evidence beyond ethnographic evidence for males solely being hunters and then we have to look carefully at the ethnographic evidence and accept it is deeply, deeply problematic.
So, in my opinion as a humble archaeology undergraduate, we either accept we have no firm evidence to say men or women hunted, just that hunting was done. If you accepted the cave paintings as evidence of male hunters when they were believed to be produced by men you should also accept they are now evidence of female hunting.
If you think you can say with certainty that ‘women have always been subjected to men because Reasons’ then you have no clue what you are talking about.Sadly much of the scholarship on the subject assumes male = hunter and works forward from that, trying to justify the assumption rather than addressing the actual evidence. Because if we accept that there is no evidence for that then it undermines a lot of nonsense gender essentialism used to handwave away sexism in society today.
Australian Archaeology by Peter Hiscock
Lectures, seminars, lost media articles etc.
*1 Of course it is ‘accepted’ (read: assumed) that all the figures are male by default unless there are obvious feminine traits as opposed to just representing people in general.
Oh my god, I could not have said that nearly as well as you did.
This is such a concise and accessible explanation of why and how so much of what we “know” about the ancient world, prehistory, and a lot of history in general has almost EVERYTHING to do with looking for confirmation of reflections of our CURRENT SOCIETY, and any academic with a lick of honesty will tell you the same thing.
A Cleveland Indians fan in red face met a Native American.. Recreating this political cartoon from 2002.
A black teenager could have a 200 IQ and find the cure for cancer and white people will still say affirmative action is the reason why they got into college
A white kid could have a 200 IQ and discover the cure for cancer and people will say his alumni daddy is the reason he got into college.
A white person will see a post having nothing to do with them and still find a way to include themselves
we can recognize that police brutality is bad in like dystopian novels like the hunger games for example people recognize that the peacekeepers are an oppressive force but when its happening in real life to real people its always “not all cops are bad” because they only target people our society doesnt view as fully human like people of color, trans people, disabled people, poor people, and sex workers
I don’t really know, but whatever this person is telling you sounds fairly suspect. Like, I know the origins of Sumerian society are a debated thing, and that different people did immigrate into the region, but from the Persian Gulf, like Ubaid period stuff. Otherwise, I don’t have any directly relevant AND accessible links I can offer.
But claims about “European” culture and like, unearthing attempts to racialize these people in a way that they could be claimed as “white people” we would be traveling quite literally back to the 1930s.
Which, and I’m sorry to go off on a tangent here, but it seems like people are always accusing medievalpoc of forcing modern definitions of race on ancient (or medieval, or whatever) cultures.
Seriously, take a look at this article:
See what I mean? As old as I am, claiming a “race” in the MODERN sense for prehistoric cultures, ancient cultures, what have you, was already done BEFORE I WAS BORN.
The reason that Postcolonial Theory can be applied to Ancient or Medieval History is because a LOT of that history was WRITTEN in colonial times. What we think and how we view these earlier times and eras in many disciplines is shaped and affected by colonial and Eurocentric views.
Exploring how this information is filtered through centuries where sociopolitical and other factors affect the information on earlier people and history we have is really, really important!
And you know what? The worst part is, the modern rebuttals to these articles and the conventions that still live on today about race and ancient people more or less all look and sound like this!
Well, what that says in non-jargon translation is more or less what I do here on this blog, but with a more historiographical focus.
There is a really obvious gap here in accessibility of information and the need for a COUNTERNARRATIVE IN POPULAR DISCOURSE AND CULTURE on the topics I cover on medievalpoc.
If white people wanna be Native so damn bad than I have a thought: white people reservations. We can round them all up and put them on a rez in the middle of no where with no real access to ,resources or employment, start a federal bureaucracy to see to their affairs, then severely underfund it. Then, to top it all off, we’ll break up the white family and send their children to live with red saviors. Ya know, to civilize them. Then keep them under such system for at LEAST 200 years.
The only thing I’m really ashamed of is how lazy 85% of my critics are. “You’re wrong because I said so” takes considerably less effort than scratching a sweaty crotch in snug trousers. I really do appreciate a well-thought out challenge to any assertions I make here, but this has the same amount of nuance as a toddler throwing a toy and screaming “no!”
History is being constantly rewritten, and providing an accessible source for this evolving knowledge on a free blogging platform is hardly “for my own gains”. Unless you count becoming popular online, in which case I absolutely promise you there are about 100 much less tiresome, thankless, and easier ways to do so.
That response is on point. And the question illustrates pretty well what it’s like to have the privilege of “History” (capital letter, scare quotes necessary) on your side. Who needs to source anything when EVERYONE KNOWS you’re right. Except you’re not—as all the sources gathered by @medievalpoc demonstrate. Except the whole discipline of history is based on a constant revaluation of sources and narratives constructed by people who have their own agendas, prejudices, and biases. (People that until very recently were almost exclusively (and are still mostly) straight white men.)
Speaking as a historian well acquainted with the ivory tower, our knowledge of the past is never objective. It’s more about us than it is about anyone who came before. And it always has been.
Bolded because that’s something I’m trying to point out more or less constantly-I’m expected to actually construct a perfectly cited/sourced argument against….literally nothing.
I’m supposed to “prove” a cultural bias wrong. Demonstrating that that is impossible as well as the reasons for that expectation is part of my purpose here, too.