The last three Disney films that starred POC were the Emperor’s New Groove in 2000, Brother Bear in 2003 and Princess and the Frog in 2009.
What did they have in common?
(Source: ursulatheseabitchh, via chonklatime)
Erm. yeah. Two existing white cisgender women who I thought were in a relationship. I was just happy Disney went that far, we gotta be positive about the little steps. Sorry that Disney doesn’t step farther and guess what, they didn’t even step THAT far because it turns out they’re sisters. Boo.
Yes, your unapologetic racist derailing is hilarious.
When I said “start your own discussions instead of derailing other people’s,” I obviously should have added “…but if your own discussions are entirely about how terribly mean and unreasonable it was of women of color to be upset about your derailing, you will probably be justifiably criticized; p.s. if you make a brand new post that is clearly directed at a person or group, you can’t complain if they then engage with it.”
schemingreader replied to your post: …
I like your last paragraph. I have a frequent need to explain this to my students. I find that discouraging.
When I first started teaching, this came as quite a shock to me, too. Many of my students come from areas of Wisconsin that are not Madison or Milwaukee, however, and have thus had very little experience talking about race in even the most uncritical of ways. They have not used the phrase “colored people” in front of any people of color, basically, and they hear me saying “people of color” and they get confused.
At this point, I just give them a little spiel at the beginning of the semester. All of the students of color and some of the White students are clearly rolling their eyes right out of their heads as I’m saying it, but it STILL crops up in a few papers (not nearly as many as if I don’t say it!), so it’s clearly necessary.
serenccino asked: people reblog these posts with separate commentary that is never seen to say another group of people who reblog with different commentary. I reblogged so my followers could see & laugh at, which they did, my stupidity. Hence my saying "Oh, I thought they were together, I am so stupid." And not tagging it so it would be seen mainly by my followers (and theirs I suppose if they chose to reblog my commentary along with the post which is unlikely if they're posting it for different reasons.)(last)
You don’t seem to be reading any of my responses.
To leave you with an additional thought, though: how do you think it feels to be discussing, as a woman of color, the ways in which people ignore the existence of characters who have identity characteristics in common with you, and to have a White person reblog your conversation about this pervasive racist feature of media and fandom, which hurts you, in order to have a laugh with their followers about their so-stupid misunderstanding of an image of these White characters?
You are already hurt by the constant willful erasure of characters of color, and someone comes into your serious conversation and… doesn’t even acknowledge that it is about characters of color. They make it into a joke about their perception of White characters. (You see this, of course, because as we’ve already noted, people see reblogs of their content.) How do you feel? Does the fact that they are posting for humorous effect make this better? I don’t really see how you could argue that it does. If anything, it would seem like it would be worse. It seems to say: “You are in pain, but that is pointless to discuss; let’s talk about how silly I am for unrelated reasons. Tee hee!”
The specifics of your original misunderstanding, which you seem intent on fleshing out in excruciating detail, are totally irrelevant.
You did something hurtful. Explaining every incremental step in the thought process that accompanied your hurtful actions does not help anyone. Thinking about why what you did was hurtful, and how you could avoid doing similar hurtful things in the future while still posting pretty much whatever content you want to your own blog, would be much more productive.
serenccino asked: have no right to say anything about poc or queer/trans* community. I can reblog as a signal boost for any of my followers who may be inspired by or interested in the posts content, but whenever I say anything, shit like this happens, so I try not to. Hence the reason I said nothing like "Oh, they should have been coloured." "Oh, they should have been together." I just said "Oh, I thought they were together. Well poo." I don't have any right to complain because I am not in those communities. (2)
The idea that people have no “right to complain” about oppression and marginalization of groups to which they do not belong is a common one, but ultimately it only benefits the dominant group. You’re right that there is a fine line between speaking out in support of marginalized groups and speaking over them, and it’s a good thing to be aware and cautious of. However, you can still speak out about clear problems like lack of representation, institutional abuse, etc. with the understanding that you may fuck up and be told that you fucked up—if you can’t handle that prospect, then signal boosting may be a better strategy for the time being.
In this particular case, however, this issue is irrelevant. There’s no question here about whether you should have contributed to the conversation about erasure of women and girls of color. The problem is that you saw a conversation about the erasure of women and girls of color, and inserted yourself to change the topic to (your misunderstanding of) representations of same-gender relationships between White women. Again, you could have made your own post about how you’d discovered that you’d misinterpreted a promotional image, even mentioning that you saw it discussed in another post. But as previously noted, reblogging by its very nature puts you in conversation with the other people on the post, and your comments clearly had no place in this particular conversation.
Incidentally, while “colo(u)red people” and “people of colo(u)r” seem lexically very similar, the former term has hurtful connotations throughout English-speaking countries as far as I’m aware. I know that this is something that non-native speakers and native speaker White people who have grown up in heavily White environments often don’t know; I’m just telling you so that you can avoid it in the future.
White women keep talking about how they’re not sorry about Frozen, they’ve always wanted a Disney movie about sisters.
yea anyone who thinks this or says this can unfollow me right the fuck now and let me know just be upfront with your white supremacist feminism so I can unfollow you too
Wow are people actually saying that kinda shit. Not surprised but def disapointed.
What seriously? I thought they were dating in Frozen. Shit, man, I was thinking they actually had a lesbian couple. I feel so stupid.
Could you not?
Your reaction to this post or my comment?
If my comment:
Not what? I seriously thought (being that I didn’t see the trailer, only a photo of the two sisters), that they were a couple and I was very shocked that they were being depicted in a movie in that way because Disney never does. Not once did I think they were the “only Disney movie about sisters,” because that wasn’t how I interpreted it and because I happen to love Lilo & Stitch who happen to depict siblings.
Of course, I imagine some people think it because everyone thinks something about everything, but I was stating that I did not think that.
Could you not take a post about white women ignoring the concerns and existence of WOC and make it about non existent white queer women?
What are you going on about I said I misinterpreted the picture. I did not bring race or queerness or cisness or heterosexuality or any kind of debate rising topic into this comment, I simply said I misinterpreted the picture.
Guess what? It’s tumblr. I will say what I want on my blog. Thank you.
It’s absolutely true that it’s your blog, and there’s nothing wrong with talking about your discovery that you misinterpreted a film still, or your disappointment that it was a misinterpretation. Lack of LGBTQ representation in popular media is something that deserves its own posts, although I would encourage everyone to think about how narrow a representation it still is if it’s always about White people.
But you chose to make that post as a reblog of a conversation amongst women of color that was specifically about how women and girls of color are rarely represented in popular media and erased by consumers and fans even when they are. Context matters, and Tumblr reblogs are all about context.
Why did you think that your thoughts about the fictional White women mentioned were relevant to this ongoing conversation? In face-to-face interaction, this would still be a pretty big derail and it would still clearly manifest the original identified problem—that White women willfully ignore women of color—but it might be a little understandable that it popped out before you considered the context.
On Tumblr, though, you had time to consider before posting the specific choice as to whether you should make this a separate discussion in your own space, or specifically position it in response to someone else’s discussion as if it were relevant to a conversation that was focused, from its very first post, on how White women are erasing women of color.
You chose poorly. I know that it feels bad to have that poor choice called out, but recognizing your mistake and not taking your unrelated issues into other people’s conversations in the future is ultimately a much more productive response.
the outcry was low key when frank ocean came out as bi and people called him gay but it’s w/e
On the morning of George Zimmerman’s acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murder earlier this year, with the mainstream media raising the specter of riots, blogger Jay Smooth made a prediction: ‘The fundamental danger of an acquittal is not more riots, it is more George Zimmermans.’
There were no riots. There have been more George Zimmermans.
— Joel Reinstein | The racist killing of Renisha McBride (via america-wakiewakie)
"Of all the problems with White Feminism, one of its biggest is that, like other forms of whiteness, white feminism just sees itself as ‘feminism’ without realizing that it’s falling into the old pitfall of viewing whiteness as the default standpoint and point of view. It assumes that white feminism speaks for all womanhood and all people, and that it is the paradigm that will eliminate oppression. White Feminism attacks what it perceives to be misogyny against its own definition of femininity and womanhood, not realizing that it often supports colonization, racism, cultural appropriation, and reinforces white supremacy by discounting and dismissing the experiences and perspectives of women of color."
— Why ‘White Feminism’ isn’t effective Feminism (via mscoolcat)