Strangefella: The thing is ...

mischief-in-221b:

paramoral:

zondvloed:

This is the body of Dashi-Dorzho Itigilov, a buddhist monk of the tibetan tradition who died in the year 1927. Itigilov is best known for leaving behind a body supposedly “incorruptible”, being resistent to organic decay. 

Itigilov left a testament that he wanted to be buried exactly as he died, namely in a lotus posture. In his testament he also made clear that his body was to be exhumed after an unspecified number of years. In 1955, many years after his death, loyal monks exhumed his remains in secresy, in fear of persecution from the anti-religious communist authorities. The body was then accordingly not subject to decomposition. Another exhumation of the body was performed in 1973, with the same outcome. 

Finally in 2002 the body was exhumed once again and reportedly thoroughly examined by medical professionals, stating the condition of the body to be the apparent age of “no more than 36 hours”. 

To this day, buddhist monks show their reverence by shaking his hand, and some enthusiasts even believe that Itigilov never died, but is currently in a state of hibernation - perhaps having achieved the transcendent state of nirvana

That is terrifying.

No, that’s amazing as fuck

fuckyeahscifiwomenofcolour:

The bolded sections represent quotes from the criticism he received. All the z-snaps are in order.

Your characters are unrealistic stereotpyes of political correctness. Is it really necessary for the sake of popular sensibilities to have in a fantasy what we…

medievalpoc:

aseantoo submitted to medievalpoc:

Unknown artist, possibly of the Brazilian School
Black Artist Completing a Portrait of a White Female Aristocrat
Brazil (early 1700s)
Oil on canvas
Philadelphia private collection
[x], [x]
I was thrilled at first to see this image - a pre-modern Black woman artist, portrayed at work! But then I saw this:
Although this black artist appears to be wearing a dress, it is likely to be a male figure. As the scholar Sheldon Cheek explains, the artist wears an earring and a silver collar, both common articles worn by black male servants/slaves in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, the collar traditionally indicating slave status. Women rarely, if ever, wore the silver collar. The artist also appears to be wearing a silver “shackle” on the arm.
Ugh. Pretty awful.

I think we should all be pretty critical of what’s written about this painting. Especially the part you’ve quoted above about how they have assigned the gender of the artist in the painting. I find it bizarre that something that is supposed to indicate enslaved status (not gender) somehow trumps this person wearing women’s clothing (that’s also a woman’s hat to the best of my knowledge).
The Americas, including Brazil, have a long tradition of transgender and third gender people. This is one of those images from the past that falls quite easily through the cracks because it is a collection of “exceptions”; it doesn’t fit nicely into categories that have been created and therefore, it’s more or less ignored.
If anyone’s hesitant to be critical, maybe you should also note that both the articles linked above make claims that slavery in Brazil was “less harsh” than other places. What???
How many of our assumptions are being projected onto this painting? Are the “contradictions” present in it a product of the painting itself, or is the problem with the categories we try to place it in? How many layers do we have to fight uphill through when we even look at this image? After all, History teaches us:
women weren’t artists
Black people weren’t artists
Black people were enslaved
Enslaved people didn’t do anything of worth
Transgender, genderqueer and third gender people didn’t exist before the 1960s
white people control how Black images are perceived, but not the other way around
gender must be immediately perceivable and fit into our categories of “male” and “female”
^ So this is the baggage we bring with us when we look at this image. We look at this painting, and we actively search for indicators that allow us to continue to believe the above assumptions.
If we take away those assumptions, if we try to move past them and see this portrait with new eyes, what are we left with? Whose History do we see here? Maybe it’s mine; maybe it’s yours.

medievalpoc:

aseantoo submitted to medievalpoc:

Unknown artist, possibly of the Brazilian School

Black Artist Completing a Portrait of a White Female Aristocrat

Brazil (early 1700s)

Oil on canvas

Philadelphia private collection

[x], [x]

I was thrilled at first to see this image - a pre-modern Black woman artist, portrayed at work! But then I saw this:

Although this black artist appears to be wearing a dress, it is likely to be a male figure. As the scholar Sheldon Cheek explains, the artist wears an earring and a silver collar, both common articles worn by black male servants/slaves in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, the collar traditionally indicating slave status. Women rarely, if ever, wore the silver collar. The artist also appears to be wearing a silver “shackle” on the arm.

Ugh. Pretty awful.

I think we should all be pretty critical of what’s written about this painting. Especially the part you’ve quoted above about how they have assigned the gender of the artist in the painting. I find it bizarre that something that is supposed to indicate enslaved status (not gender) somehow trumps this person wearing women’s clothing (that’s also a woman’s hat to the best of my knowledge).

The Americas, including Brazil, have a long tradition of transgender and third gender people. This is one of those images from the past that falls quite easily through the cracks because it is a collection of “exceptions”; it doesn’t fit nicely into categories that have been created and therefore, it’s more or less ignored.

If anyone’s hesitant to be critical, maybe you should also note that both the articles linked above make claims that slavery in Brazil was “less harsh” than other places. What???

How many of our assumptions are being projected onto this painting? Are the “contradictions” present in it a product of the painting itself, or is the problem with the categories we try to place it in? How many layers do we have to fight uphill through when we even look at this image? After all, History teaches us:

  • women weren’t artists
  • Black people weren’t artists
  • Black people were enslaved
  • Enslaved people didn’t do anything of worth
  • Transgender, genderqueer and third gender people didn’t exist before the 1960s
  • white people control how Black images are perceived, but not the other way around
  • gender must be immediately perceivable and fit into our categories of “male” and “female”

^ So this is the baggage we bring with us when we look at this image. We look at this painting, and we actively search for indicators that allow us to continue to believe the above assumptions.

If we take away those assumptions, if we try to move past them and see this portrait with new eyes, what are we left with? Whose History do we see here? Maybe it’s mine; maybe it’s yours.

misterand:

En Vogue

free your mind 

misterand:

En Vogue

free your mind 

amongtombstones:

A world with no mercy needs a man with no fear. See Liam Neeson in A Walk Among the Tombstones, in theaters 9/19. Watch the trailer.

This was great L.Block novel

amongtombstones:

A world with no mercy needs a man with no fear. See Liam Neeson in A Walk Among the Tombstones, in theaters 9/19. Watch the trailer.

This was great L.Block novel

sadangrylatina:

sizvideos:

Video

racism at its finest

ebony-71:

somethingelsexxx:




"In the instant that you love someone In the second that the hammer hits Reality runs up your spine And the pieces finally fit”


 Impressive nipples  of the day

ebony-71:

somethingelsexxx:

"In the instant that you love someone In the second that the hammer hits Reality runs up your spine And the pieces finally fit”

Impressive nipples of the day
Get to know: Naomi
wowzer !