PRESS CTRL OR COMMAND+ FOR BIGGER TEXT, CTRL OR COMMAND- FOR SMALLER TEXT
SKIP TO NAVIGATION & SEARCH | SKIP TO CONTENT

{ Everyone, I’m really not that informed on pop culture. }

tranzient:

bodyfluid:

Like, at all. 

I mean, I have my opinions and my opinions are the reason I don’t pay attention.
I don’t like reading things that make me uncomfortable, and to be honest, a lot of these celebrities make me uncomfortable.

Like the Sarah Silverman thing. Has everyone forgotten that she dressed up in black face while making a racist joke? 

Or Amanda Palmers ‘ironic’ view of the KKK and the fake rape scene on stage, which Margaret Cho was a part of.

Then all the stuff I’ve been saying about Ke$ha, Katy Perry and Lady Gaga. Why are we ignoring these things?

They aren’t great allies. We should not allow people in this world to be shoved under the bus while they’re making money through our expense.

Wow. Lost a lot of respect for Margaret Cho. And yeah, I’m done with everyone else listed. 

Margaret Cho, noooooooooooooooo!  Why!

(Source: elvanui, via tranzient-deactivated20110219-d)

{ Lady Gaga must be stopped. }

thejuthikakid:

andtheskygoesblack:

trastorn:

aintitgrand:

mcqueens:

pielettes:

LOL k at “chola descent”.

Lawd, take me higher at her use of “orient”.

):

What kind of tragic mess did she say this time?

a lyric from her new single

‘CHOLA DESCENT
YOU’RE LEBANESE, YOU’RE ORIENT’

jesus take the wheel

ew ew ew ew ew

So for the record, how many isms so far from the oh-so-progressive Gaga?  Is her whole “progressive” image built on wearing weird clothes and turning DADT repeal into a piece of decoration for her image?

(via juthikaforpresident-deactivated)

so-treu:

radicallyhottoff:

ekswitaj:

Lady Gaga Brings Cholas Back To Pop Culture – Like It Or Not

leavemeunderwater:

ekswitaj:

radicallyhottoff:

thegreatpumpkin:

NO. DO NOT WANT.

MOTHAFUCKING WAT??????

Looks like she forgot that you don’t get to reclaim terms *for* people. The lines under discussion are also incredibly awkward; parallelism had to be ignored and a word chopped up for them to rhyme and have the right meter, so it would seem that she really, really wanted to use the words.

Oh my goodness… I don’t even know where to start.

To address the title of the song you’re not born a chola, if the cards are dealt this way for you then you become one. Chola/Cholo, at least in America (and even Mexico I think), is a criminal and gangster, a degenerate. They have a certain get-up, that’s for sure. They’re easy to spot. This is not a term I’d be proud to be called and it can’t be used to identify Latinos in a pathetic line in a dumb stanza of stupid song listing, I suppose, races of all types.

Oh and “Chola” in Bolivia (and maybe other countries along the Andes) is a name for indigenous women who dress in a very particular way. Think she’ll use that in her video?

Oh I don’t care, I don’t have cable.

Reblogging for commentary. (I didn’t know the Bolivian meaning.)

Well, I don’t have any problem being called chola—and have called myself chola for a long time. I am not from Cali (which is where the term is mostly used, to my understanding), I’m from Michigan—but I refuse the (often classist and sexist) understanding of gang girls who are more often than not, negotiating violence with limited tools and resources rather than deliberately courting a reputation.

Not saying that every Chicana/Latina is proud or should be proud to call herself or be identified as Chola—rather instead saying Cholas almost exclusively are the brunt of fucked up shit (you never see anybody making fun of or pretending to be cholos) and what I see as tools of survival being mocked—I think that it’s almost a type of gendered violence to make fun of those tools of survival—that whole tuff attitude that Sandra Bullock was imitating and everybody was laughing at? Why would girls/women take on that tuff attitude? Unless they needed it? So you’re taking something that a girl *needs* to survive and mocking it on national television?Making a girl fighting for her survival into a fool?

It’s sorta the same thing as all the Michelle Obama sketches on mad Tv and SNL  always have sweet sweet michelle finally getting pissed off and going gangsta—her hair getting all big and her head and finger wagging—it’s classist bullshit, implying black women can’t ever be “classy” (loaded term, y’all)—but at its core, it’s making fun of a tool of survival for black women (standing up for themselves cuz nobody fucking else is) and taking away their humanity and power.

^^also this.

radicallyhottoff:

note-a-bear:

radicallyhottoff:

ekswitaj:

Lady Gaga Brings Cholas Back To Pop Culture – Like It Or Not

leavemeunderwater:

ekswitaj:

radicallyhottoff:

thegreatpumpkin:

NO. DO NOT WANT.

MOTHAFUCKING WAT??????

Looks like she forgot that you don’t get to reclaim terms *for* people. The lines under discussion are also incredibly awkward; parallelism had to be ignored and a word chopped up for them to rhyme and have the right meter, so it would seem that she really, really wanted to use the words.

Oh my goodness… I don’t even know where to start.

To address the title of the song you’re not born a chola, if the cards are dealt this way for you then you become one. Chola/Cholo, at least in America (and even Mexico I think), is a criminal and gangster, a degenerate. They have a certain get-up, that’s for sure. They’re easy to spot. This is not a term I’d be proud to be called and it can’t be used to identify Latinos in a pathetic line in a dumb stanza of stupid song listing, I suppose, races of all types.

Oh and “Chola” in Bolivia (and maybe other countries along the Andes) is a name for indigenous women who dress in a very particular way. Think she’ll use that in her video?

Oh I don’t care, I don’t have cable.

Reblogging for commentary. (I didn’t know the Bolivian meaning.)

Well, I don’t have any problem being called chola—and have called myself chola for a long time. I am not from Cali (which is where the term is mostly used, to my understanding), I’m from Michigan—but I refuse the (often classist and sexist) understanding of gang girls who are more often than not, negotiating violence with limited tools and resources rather than deliberately courting a reputation.

Not saying that every Chicana/Latina is proud or should be proud to call herself or be identified as Chola—rather instead saying Cholas almost exclusively are the brunt of fucked up shit (you never see anybody making fun of or pretending to be cholos) and what I see as tools of survival being mocked—I think that it’s almost a type of gendered violence to make fun of those tools of survival—that whole tuff attitude that Sandra Bullock was imitating and everybody was laughing at? Why would girls/women take on that tuff attitude? Unless they needed it? So you’re taking something that a girl *needs* to survive and mocking it on national television?Making a girl fighting for her survival into a fool?

It’s sorta the same thing as all the Michelle Obama sketches on mad Tv and SNL  always have sweet sweet michelle finally getting pissed off and going gangsta—her hair getting all big and her head and finger wagging—it’s classist bullshit, implying black women can’t ever be “classy” (loaded term, y’all)—but at its core, it’s making fun of a tool of survival for black women (standing up for themselves cuz nobody fucking else is) and taking away their humanity and power.

reblogging for commentary.

Also, thought I’d add a few articles that came up when I was looking for what radicallyhottoff was talking about before.

Maybe It’s Just Me…

Colorlines

My Latino Voice <—-this article has an interesting linguistic pullout quote. Granted, the research is from wikipedia, but still, I find it an interesting conversation point:


“The term’s use is first recorded in a Peruvian book published in 1609 and 1616, the Comentarios Reales de los Incas by Inca Garcilaso de la Vega. He writes (in Spanish) “The child of a Black male and an Indian female, or of an Indian male and Black female, they call mulato and mulata. The children of these they call cholo. Cholo is a word from the Windward Islands; it means dog, not of the purebred variety, but of very disreputable origin; and the Spaniards use it for insult and vituperation”.
[1]

In Colonial Mexico, the terms cholo and coyote co-existed, indicating mixed Mestizo and Amerindian ancestry. Under the casta system of colonial Latin America, cholo originally applied to the children resulting from the union of a Mestizo and an Amerindian; that is, someone of three quarters Amerindian and one quarter Spanish ancestry. Other terms (mestizo, castizo, etc.) were used to denote other ratios of smaller or greater Spanish-to-Amerindian ancestry.

The word “xolotl” (pronounced “cholotl”) is an Aztec word which means dog. It is from this meaning that the word “cholo” developed its negative connotation, taking on a similar meaning to “mutt” as applied to humans.

Student Operated Press

interesting shit—I didn’t know that about the colonial beginnings of the word…

(via bigbadcolored-deactivated201104)

{ Why cultural context is important and time period matters. }

radicallyhottoff:

tranzient:

custerdiedforyoursins:

theoceanandthesky:

ctchphrse:

(Before you jump on the GaGa bandwagon, give this a read and consider your own actions. I know what the picture could imply, but I also know it could very well imply the exact opposite.)

The term hooligan, now meaning, “a tough or aggressive violent youth” used to be a derogatory term to refer to a filthy Irish drunk.

The term vandal, now meaning, “one who defaces or destroys public or private property,” used to be a derogatory term for classless, Godless Germans.

The term barbarian, now meaning “a fierce, brutal, or cruel person,” used to be a derogatory term to refer to a vile foreigner.

The term bugger, now meaning “a disreputable person,” used to be a derogatory term for a Bulgarian sodomite.

The term gyp, now meaning “a fraud,” used to be an ethnic slur for Godless gypsies.

Just because Blackface used to be used in a racist and demeaning way, does not mean GaGa is using it that way. But you are perfectly entitled to react how you think is appropriate. I’m just providing an alternate viewpoint that you should at least take in to consideration.

isn’t this very similar to “it’s okay to call people lame because even though it used to mean someone with a diability it doesn’t mean that now?”

also since when has blackface ever not been racist?

How could blackface imply the opposite of what blackface implies? Oh and “gyp” is still very much fucking racist. I’m not too sure about the other examples though.

Yeah, no. It’s still racist and all this “well, look at it this way,” can be molded into a pile of shit for all I care.

except gaga did not use a *word*—she used a physical action. so the proper “put this in context” is “what is going on in this picture”—NOT—words change and have different meanings at different times. the equivalent would be—who has “reclaimed” or otherwise “contextualized” blackface in such a way as to complexify it or destigmatize it. And that would be next to nobody who is not black. I can’t think of one example of anybody who is not black who has in anyway reworked it. This is one of those things where white people (and non-black people) have no business messing in for *any* reason. (and this is giving lady gaga a huuuuuuuuuuuge benefit of the doubt. i don’t think she’s trying to contextualize or destigmatize shit.)

reblogging for commentary.

and i fucking love how people saying that blackface is racist is being framed as “jumping on the bandwagon” — bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.  Gaga’s been horrible in several ways (any ONE of which would’ve been a deal-breaker imo) and continues to be horrible.

(Source: cracked.com, via bigbadcolored-deactivated201104)

{ I feel so sick to my stomach }

healthtothepeople:

that i have enjoyed lady gaga with my child! at least i can find some comfort in knowing that the music is pirated. and i can put a swift end to listening to it anyways. 

i just googled lady gaga/blackface and it’s not really the first time. you can see lady gaga herself in blackface here: http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/hey-aint-that-racist-lady-gaga-does-al.html (is this blog satire? neoconservative perspective oh look at gaga, but you dare to call the tea party racist, gawd. make it fucking stop)

this is so stupid lady gaga…you better ask some one seriously. i’m all for art and especially performance art. go back to nyu and this time take some African American Studies, Women and Gender Studies, Chican@ studies if you care about equality. 

i’m not privileging college because obviously lots of people figure this stuff out everyday. but in gaga’s little world…she needs a little help clearly. 

(via bigbadcolored-deactivated201104)

{ Concerning this Gaga Blackface business }

pinchepeaches:

I’m sorry if this is not going to be as detailed as I want it to be. Since this is me trying to remember a class from college, but I shall try nonetheless.

For those of you that don’t understand that Blackface has been around for a while, it has. It was started as a way to mock slaves and to present a distorted image. That image being that somehow, these African-Americans were happy with where they were. To feed that delusion that everything was alright. That slavery was good for the African-American soul. 

And therein lies problem number one: THIS SHIT IS NOT REAL. It was never authentic and it is not an accurate portrayal at all of their lives at the time. So when a book like Uncle Tom’s Cabin exposed the oppression faced by African-Americans in the country, people were shocked. Because here was the truth.

Does this sound familiar? Because it still happens today. Performers and artists try to adapt experiences that are not their own. Look at all of the girls on Tumblr with the fucking headdresses on their heads. Look at Gwen Stefani with the bindi on her head. Look at Lady Gaga still using the word Orient in a song that will be released this week. And there are loads more that I am forgetting. It is such a commonplace in today’s media, that it is not given a second thought. Unless you actually think about what that image means and who you are hurting with presenting that image to the world.

The first motion picture talkie is remembered as just that. The Jazz Singer was also a film that used Blackface. But then again, that’s ignored because it was a “landmark” film. It’s a fucking footnote.

All that this is nothing more than perpetuating stereotypes that are not true. It is not true. None of it. It is false and it is so perverse that it has been ingrained into the popular media in the gold old USA. So don’t defend Gaga because she is the greatest Pop Singer Blahblahblah of the new century blahblahblah. She is just someone who thinks that she is presenting us with the truth. 

But you know better, don’t you?

(via sdfwe4332-deactivated20120124)

{ donning blackface is a bad thing. }

EDIT: *trigger warning* because there are photos

thejuthikakid:

robertbowiebuttsex:

thejuthikakid:

It’s a very, very bad thing. 

Racism is not eliminated in 2011. It’s still embedded in society, and it’s embedded in everything. We cannot say that racism is done and over with when blackface and saying the n word is acceptable.

What Lady Gaga did was wrong. I wish she did her research before she decided to show how much of an ally she was to PoC, because she’s really not anymore.

Racism is a bad thing. So is jumping to conclusions.

First of all, those were two fans who walked up to her at a bar and asked for a picture. She never asked them to put the blackface on.

Second of all, we’re not even sure it was actually black face. Someone pointed out that what they were wearing could’ve just as easily been mud facial masks. Which makes a lot more sense for them to be wearing then black face in the first place, anyways.

Jumping to conclusions is as bad as racism? As bad as someone donning makeup that is known to be mocking and racist? 

Look, I have liked Lady Gaga. I’ve admired her voice and I’ve admired the fact that she always was different from the norm. But for fuck’s sake, you cannot excuse her behavior and look for context when it’s a huge pop star. I understand that many people love her, I have loved her, but that’s not excusable. And source for that? I’ve been looking it up and I found that it’s from an Eminem concert.

And of course they have mud facial masks outside of the house. Yep, that’s totally plausible, don masks right in front of Lady Gaga. 

This is a mud mask:

And this is the picture:

There is a huge difference between blackface and facial masks.

^ i agree with Juthika.  what the fuck is this shit.

(via juthikaforpresident-deactivated)

{ Lady Gaga’s Cissexism Updated }

genderbitch:

So since that was in an ask, I’m leaving the material here in a standard textpost so y’all can reblog if you want.

Yeah, apparently I was remembering the wrong article. Cuz it was a different one not the one with the lady reference and this particular source fucked up the quote badly (it was actually in response to people asking her if she’s wild).

Her actual cissexism is detailed here: Lady Gaga’s cissexism in her vids and in articles mentioned on Oh No They Didn’t and the original journalist work done on gudbyetjane.

The article itself is how her “vagina is offended” at the claims [TRIGGER WARNING: essentialism and cissexism, possible intersex hate too].

So it’s clear that the original article I linked had some bad sourcework in it but I know I had heard of this happening somewhere else then there (without any mentions of ladydom) and the stuff above is where I had gotten that intel (if only I’d remembered to link that instead, right? XD) Also the OP has the word transphobia in it, which is problematic due to  appropriation of disabilities. So, new and improved cissexism added in instead.

So sorry for any confusion that caused with inaccuracies and the wrong article presented. But Lady Gaga is definitely still cissexist.

Also, Lady Gaga says she “looks like a transsexual” [trigger warning for cissexist bullshit and apologism from the source article and for the love of god don’t read the comments] showing that this is not the only case of her bullshit.

(Source: punwitch)

I hate it already. A gay anthem, whether it’s “I Will Survive” or “The Man That Got Away” or “And I’m Telling You I’m Not Going,” BECOMES a gay anthem because we find ourselves empathizing with the singer’s passion or pain or exuberance. It’s the realization that their pain is our pain too, that their joy is our joy etc. It’s that our commonality has brought us together.

“It’s ALMOST NEVER because it was written FOR GAY MEN TO HELP GAY MEN DEAL WITH BEING GAY MEN. That’s just cynical and obvious. It’s like bit like Susan Sontag’s explanation of “pure camp” being something that strives for greatness but fails spectacularly, while “contrived camp” is something that intentionally sets out to be bad and cannot, therefore, be as satisfying.

“Gaga here isn’t allowing us the choice of deciding whether or not this song will be a gay anthem (like “Bad Romance”), she’s TELLING US that it is, and that makes it somehow less pure and less satisfying. It’s contrived. I haven’t heard the melody yet, and although I’m sure it will be a foot-stomper, I already feel manipulated.

James St. James (via guilty-pleasures1414)

All of this. ALL OF IT.

(via aintitgrand)

This highlights one of the main problems with the song. No one wants their anthem decided for them.

(via fyeahqueermusic)

THIS. THIS. THIS.

feel free to support me, but i am not going to be your fucking ~*~SUPER LOYAL GAY TARGET MARKET~*~ just because you released a song wherein you say “hey, so, gay people: MAYBE not going to burn in hell forever??”

especially ESPECIALLY if the singer themselves isn’t queer, whichhh they never are (eta: except gaga).

(via emilyswash)

^ agree.

(Source: radley114, via justjasper)