The dilemma for Anna May Wong was increasingly obvious. Despite her triumph in The Thief of Bagdad and continued good reviews in mediocre productions, her career was stalled in Hollywood. True, she was now a staple in movie magazines, with full-page spreads appearing regularly. But her chances of moving up from supporting or featured player to star were improbable. Production codes against interracial kissing meant that she could not graduate to star billing, even in films with Orientalist themes. Rather, she had to watch as less talented white women took the roles that might have given her more fame, and at least more sympathetic parts. Despite her great beauty, she was cast as a prostitute, an opium dealer, or simply as insignificant color. Her final scenes featured suicide by knife or death by overdose of opium.
Anna May Wong: From Laundryman’s Daughter to Hollywood Legend (Graham Russell Gao Hodges)
I want to comment on why the Model Minority Myth is bad - not good, not neutral, but nothing other than bad.
- Firstly, no racial stereotype is positive. They are reductive and created with the intention to limit one’s humanity. They are caricatures of an entire group of people.
- The Model Minority Myth was created by white people.
- It was coined in the 1960’s when the New York Times Newspaper ran stories describing the success of Asian-Americans (I believe specifically Japanese-American and then Chinese American people) in the US despite marginalization(they didn’t want to say racism) basically saying that through cultural influences which promoted strong family values and hard work ethic, Asian Americans were able to “thrive” in the US despite the barriers that were present.
- This was the 1960’s, an era that included numerous social & political movements not only in the US, but around the world. The Model Minority Myth was created in opposition to those movements, namely the Civil Rights Movement in a manner that proposed Asian Americans, who were/are racial minorities, were doing quite well in spite of the issues that were being highlighted throughout the Civil Rights Movement (a movement largely headed by Black Americans).
- Not only were white people using Asian Americans as a means for justifying that things were fine the way they were, white people were pitting Asian Americans against other People of Color.
- The Model Minority Myth contributes to the idea that all Asians are interchangeable. It ignores the differences in histories, economic status, and educational attainment among the people of various ethnicities who are racialized as Asian, collectively and individually.
- Statistically, it just isn’t true when you look across the board at various ethnic groups racialized as Asian the level of economic and educational disparity. (For Hmong-American people, the percentage of those living in poverty is 25% & we’re also below in terms of educational attainment and annual median salary)
- Having been perpetuated, it’s placed unfair expectations/pressures on Asian students academically and contributed to false ideas of our performance making academic aid and support more difficult (in terms of its availability and in asking for it)
It’s a hatred of that kind of feminine expression on a Black woman. Bombastic textures, neon, pink, all of that is “too much” for most little girls to get away with without any harassment, let alone a grown woman of color. It’s always considered the fakest of the fake, worse than anyone in even wilder shit like literal garbage n meat. Because… Pink is the most offensively condensed girliness the world can muster, so how dare Nicki be pink! Now she’s “better” “refined” “toned down” etc even though we know her looks are all legendary and well planned.
..while these older wish-they-had-ever-been white “artists” are half assedly adopting these “girly” aesthetics by appropriating and bastardizing what they call “Asian cultures,” complete with silenced back up dancers to be submissive to them, both in demeanor and in a more literal, contractual sense. Gwen made the “harajuku girls” sign a contract of silence with the limited opportunity presented to them, n I really doubt these gag orders are now suddenly uncommon now that she launched this creepy late-stage weeaboo trend. They’ve likely refined the process to keep it even quieter.
But oh, Nicki was gross because wigs n frills and funny faces/noises she makes sometimes. Too much smiling and laughing or some shit.
Day 1 of White History Month: Imaginary Black-on-White Crime
[Images: Newspaper Article on Rosewood Massacre, Newspaper Article on Scottsboro Boys [x], Boston Herald Cover feating Charles Stuart [x], Conrad Zdzierak and Surveillance Photo of Conrad Zdzierak wearing a mask to appear Black during a robbery [x], Ashley Smith [x], Police Officer Robert Ralston [x], Ashley Todd hoax [x], Bethany Storro [x]]
White-on-Black hoaxes follow a standard pattern. First, law enforcement officials are called into action. They are asked to protect an innocent White person from further harm and to apprehend a widely perceived threat, a menacing Black man. Second, the incident arouses sympathy and results in calls for swift and stiff punishment. Third, even after the hoax is uncovered, the image of the criminalblackman lingers and becomes more embedded in our collective racial consciousness. - Katheryn Russell-Brown, The Color of Crime
White Americans have ascribed criminality to Blackness for centuries. There is a long pattern of blaming (and punishing) Black Americans for crimes they never committed, furthering this notion. While the aspect of race was noted when Conor Zdzierak disguised himself as a Black man, blaming Black Americans for crimes is part of a long-running historical theme in the United States. The trend relies upon ideas of inherent Black criminality and white virtue - particularly the Black Male Rapist and Pure White Woman. False accusations and racial hoaxes have led to terrible consequences: death (particularly lynchings), riots, imprisonment, and economic losses.
Disclaimer: Rape accusations are almost always true [pdf]. One notable exception is a historical pattern of false accusations against Black men for raping white women, often resulting in violent consequences.
1923 Rosewood Massacre
The Rosewood massacre was not unlike many other historical cases that lead to anti-Black violence. In 1923, a white woman named Francis Taylor, claimed that she had been beaten and raped by a Black man. This story quickly turned into rumors of rape and assault. In reality, she had been beaten by her lover, John Bradley, but the Sheriff took the story at face value; he neglected to question Sarah Carrier, who had been working for Francis Taylor.
The Sheriff instead suggested that it was a supposedly escaped prisoner, Jesse Hunter. A large mob of white men gathered; it amassed hundreds, largely from the neighboring town of Sumner, but with men coming from as far as 200 miles away to join in. They first tortured and lynched an innocent Black man named Sam Carter. The mob then proceeded to Rosewood, claiming that Jesse Hunter was hiding with his cousin, Sylvester Carrier - a Black man from an influential Rosewood family. It was certainly no coincidence that Rosewood was an exceptional Black community that was self-sufficient and relatively prosperous.
The white mob proceeded to kill both Sylvester and his mother, Sarah Carrier - the same woman who worked for Francis Taylor and had claimed that she had been beaten by her lover, not a Black man. They continued onwards over the next few days, killing more Rosewood residents and eventually burning Rosewood to the ground. A grand jury found “insufficient evidence” to prosecute members of the mob. The surviving residents of Rosewood were left with nothing. Families were scattered and forced to rebuild their lives elsewhere.
Victoria Price and Ruby Bates and the Scottsboro Boys [Timeline]
In 1931, two white women, Victoria Price and Ruby Bates, engaged in sexual activity on a train. In order to avoid charges, they accused nine Black teenage boys of raping them. Within days the boys were indicted by a grand jury, and in the following two weeks, all nine of the boys (ranging in age from 13 to 19) were convicted of rape and sentenced to death.
There was no physical evidence of rape, and a letter was uncovered in 1932 where Ruby Bates admitted to her boyfriend that she was not raped. In 1933 she testified that she was not raped.
Despite this, the sentences of the boys were converted only to lengthy sentences (from 20 years to life). None of the convictions were dropped until 1937, when Roy Wright, Eugene Williams, Olen Montgomery, and Willie Roberson were exonerated. The remaining men still had to serve sentences until they were paroled (and one briefly escaped). The last three of the Scottsboro boys who had not received a dropped conviction or pardon were only posthumously pardoned in 2013.
Contemporary Cases – Racial Hoaxes
Racial hoaxes - crimes that are fabricated or blamed on someone because of their race - are not only committed by white people, but if you search for any of the names below, you are likely to find portrayals of them as pained, complex figures. You will find their heinous actions attributed to mental illness, personal troubles, and childhood trauma.
Legal scholar Katheryn K. Russell-Brown wrote extensively about racial hoaxes in her book Color of Crime, documenting cases between 1987 and 1996; she found that 70 percent of the time, racial hoaxes involved white accusers. Not only have ordinary citizens falsified reports of Black criminals, but police officers and judicial representatives have invented imaginary Black criminals as well.
Charles Stuart murdered his pregnant wife, and with the help of his brother Matthew Stuart, proceeded to make the situation look like a robbery gone wrong. He blamed the incident on an imaginary Black man, igniting racial tensions in Boston and leading to police largely occupying the neighborhood of Mission Hill. He eventually picked Willie Bennett out of a lineup, leading to calls for Bennett to receive the death penalty. Charles Stuart’s brother eventually turned his brother in; soon after, Charles Stuart committed suicide.
In 1994, Susan Smith claimed that she had been carjacked and her two children abducted by a Black man, starting a frantic manhunt. While her hoax quickly unraveled, she exploited racial stereotypes and fears to cover up that she murdered her two young sons.
In October 2008, Ashley Todd (a McCain campaign volunteer) claimed to have been robbed at knifepoint by a Black man, who upon seeing her McCain bumper sticker, carved a backwards ‘B’ into her face. Todd only admitted the story was false and the wound self-inflicted when surveillance photos contradicted her account. The incident sparked racial tensions nationwide.
Philadelphia police officer Robert Ralston claimed that while questioning two Black men, one of them shot him in the shoulder. The story never quite added up and the evidence was non-existent, but he still managed to launch a manhunt and inflame racial tensions. Weeks later, it was revealed that his wound was self-inflicted. Ralston was to cover the cost of the manhunt, but did not face criminal charges.
In 2010, Bethany Storro claimed that a random Black woman approached her saying “Hey, pretty little girl, want to take a drink of this?” and proceeded to throw acid on her face. Of course, no such Black woman existed, but police still spent hundreds of hours questioning and detaining Black women, all while sympathetic strangers donated money to Storro. Her account undoubtedly relied upon the dynamic between Black women and white women to gain sympathy.
white people’s reactions to that post criticising Lucy makes me so fucking angry. More than that, it makes me trust them a little bit less.
fuck that whole “yes it’s problematic but I’m still excited!” attitude towards that film because it is so much bullshit. Yeah, who cares about POC getting slaughtered and the violent linguistic imperialism BECAUSE ~STRONG WHITE FEMALE CHARACTER~. Apparently, POC’s deaths are less rage-inducing and less meaningful to white allies if a white woman is killing them instead of a white man.
To us, it’s still same white violence we see impeached everyday.
A white woman literally shoots a man in the head for not speaking English. Never mind the danger and oppression non-native English speakers face in the West, this took place in his home country. White expats are given so much fucking priority in Taiwan and China, with the way they’re catered to and coddled.
The kind of neo-imperialistic violence that this film is couching as ~female empowerment~ is really, really fucking harmful. White people have privilege in non-Western countries as well (the shit I’ve seen expats and exchange students get away with in China is astounding), to the extent that we aren’t even safe from harm in our own countries; this film not only ignores it, it glorifies it.
don’t you ever fucking forget that, because we can’t.
Part of having privilege means being able to watch and enjoy media that is harmful to marginalised minorities and still be critical of it, but when this dehumanisation is shoved in our faces, white people need to remember that this is so, so personal.
white women’s liberation basically equals being able to do the same shit as white men. Thats its. Thats all that they want.
Anonymous asked: how is Lucy racist? I wanted to watch it and now im sad :(
anonymous asked: What is Lucy and why is it racist?
lucy is a movie, coming out this summer in 2014. here’s the trailer for it.
anonymous asked: can you please explain how lucy is racist - i’m not saying it isn’t, i just havent seen the film yet or heard anything about it being racist. I was really excited to see it because it’s an action film with a female lead without an unnecessary love interest motivation…
lovely anon, i was so excited about the movie too. i love scarlet and it looked really amazing (apart from that stupid 10% brain thing, i don’t really like that trope) but then i started to realize how racist this movie is. we’ve only seen a trailer, couple of minutes and there are so many racist undertones.
this really says it.
people really see this movie “Lucy” as a step in the right direction to more representation because somehow it’s revolutionary to have a white person as the (anti)hero killing people of color? People really think that one has to see the whole movie in it’s entirety to say that it’s shit? Other than swapping a white man for a white woman, it’s the same shit of invoking negative tropes and cliches against Asian men in modern movies that we’ve been seeing in the past couple of years since the Red Dawn remake. (source)
because, lets be honest, it’s true. i am all in for female lead in super heroes, and i am not the one who is angry because she’s not a POC. the way everyone else is portrayed, the way how it still hold onto those stupid tropes of asian/POCs as villains just disgusts me. maybe its even worse for me because i’m asian i dont even know.
the upcoming movie lucy will feature the age-old racist narrative of pure white woman (scarlet johansson) being violated by scary, brown men. and the new white feminist trope of women gaining their power by violently eliminating brown men. who needs the white male savior when we now have white female saviors, taking it into their own hands to save their whiteness from all that non-whiteness. so radical. (source)
feminism, hell yes. only white feminism? no. i am not here to see white female saviors kicking POCs ass, who look like they’re really poorly written. did someone who was involved with this movie even made effort?
let’s have a look in this picture. we see the white female lead and the asian antagonist. we see chinese writing in the background.
I just asked a family member to translate this. They came back with “Keep Clean. Apple, scallop & ginger, orange, tomato, grape” (source)
can this be even more ridiculous? just make your fucking research guys. do they think it looks fancy to have chinese writing on the wall? because its not??? its stupid and it makes me angry and/or wants to laugh.
Okay but why the fuck is this movie set in Asia, filled with Asian villains, with a white female protag? Yes, wow, the lead’s a woman, fantastic, but apart from that it’s not really any different from the other movies made in a long history of having white people kicking the shit out of exclusively Asian villains.
Really, seriously. I just want to know why they had to set it in Asia with a white woman lead. Why not set the damn movie in the US if they want a big name yt actress that badly? Or, why not just cast a Taiwanese actress if they want it to be set in Asia that bad?
Or maybe not do those things to avoid another Orientalist shitshow because those are exactly the thematic cues they’re going for with a vulnerable white woman being abused by morally corrupt Asian men. OH BUT FEMINIST SUBVERSION! THE VULNERABLE WHITE WOMAN KILLS THEM ALL INSTEAD, YEAHHHH GO FEMINISM!
Meanwhile Asian cultures continue to be portrayed as backwards, Asian men continue to be portrayed as vile predators, but hey go feminism right? Nevermind that Asian women get thrown under the bus with this too. (source)
i agree on this so much. just dont motherfucking make that movie in taiwan? and then we have all those white “feminist” who are like: “okay, this movie is amazing, has a female lead in a action/superhero movie and u all still find something to complain about, just shut up”
no. i dont care that she’s a woman if it’s racist. just because you have a female lead doesn’t make the movie amazing. and it sure doesn’t excuse the fact how racist it is. if you really are a feminist, you should know, that feminism not only includes white women. it includes POC women. feminism includes so many more than just that. don’t call yourself a feminist if you can ignore all these things and still watch this movie because *yay female lead*.
what is even worse is this scene:
white woman literally kills an asian guy because he can’t speak english. LITERALLY. how should i feel as an asian woman? this guy could be so many other people i know in real life who can’t speak english. i could imagine it be my father or other people i know. but no, it’s okay, because she’s a woman. because it looks badass.
she isn’t even in the USA or any other english- speaking state. bUt nO OF COURSE YOU ALL HAVE TO SPEAK ENGLISH. not everything revolves about you. SHE’S the one who is in a foreign country, she should be the one adapting to it and not the other way round. i dont go to USA and shoot people because they can’t speak vietnamese.
that’s just fucking stupid why even.
for once i’d like to be able to post a trailer for a movie i’m interested in because of the female lead without feeling like a sack of shit afterward because someone needed to take a minute and really dissect every scene in the trailer just to outline how offensive it is. (…) we’re taking baby steps here, people. (…) so can’t we just take a minute to sit back and support an actress we like while enjoying an action film? /not sourcing this one because i am not an ass/
how can i enjoy a movie when i am offended.
how do you suppose to want me enjoy a movie when my people are thrown back down so you all can have your female lead
people say that this might take a step. that having this movie will open the doors for WOC. are you serious? do you want us to always be on the second array? do we have to sit quietly back and be all happy that you finally have a movie so we “might have one later too”?
Anonymous asked: How come white people are always to quick to point out that race is an artificial construct when they get called out for doing racist shit as though that's some kind of defense... I mean it is an artificial construct... that was **invented by white people** to systematically oppress everyone else on the planet.
Also, why the fuck do racists always think this is a valid argument? Do they understand that just because something is artificially constructed doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist?
I would just like to share something I’ve held in for a while.
For Black History Month, the Black Student Union was provided a bulletin board outside the Dean’s office by Co-Curricular Programs in Union Hall to decorate.This was decorated on February 2nd.
We worked hard in displaying and commemorating strong affluent leaders and inspirational figures of the Black community. Unfortunately, our works were recently discovered to be ripped down and what remained was a picture of the late Trayvon Martin (originally being part of the collage).This discovery was found on February 13th.
The act seemed quite intentional being that the pictures were attached to a larger piece of paper as the backdrop of the collage. The late Trayvon Martin’s picture had to have been ripped away from this collage and reattached to the bulletin in order for it to stand alone. I have provided pictures of the bulletin board before and after the desecration.
The school has done nothing towards this issue. Although it was in February, I still that some sort of public announcement of intolerance has to be sent out to the student body.
I will not stress how many times this school has brushed under the rug, so many racial issues.
What do you guys think? Would you be mad? Would you care?
If so , do share, and reblog this photo and spread around the type of experiences people of color go through at PWI’s.
If white American feminist theory need not deal with the differences between us, and the resulting difference in our oppressions, then how do you deal with the fact that the women who clean your houses and tend your children while you attend conferences on feminist theory are, for the most part, poor women and women of Color?
What is the theory behind racist feminism?
Did you know that Charles Darwin’s son would hit up the AMNH/ American Museum of Natural History and hold meetings which in some of those meetings he and a group discussed ‘population control’ of minority subjects and were very fond of eugenics and bettering the races by excluding non whites and poor people?
In 1932, the Third International Conference of Eugenics was held at the Museum of Natural History in New York City. It was sponsored by Mrs. H. R. duPont of the Delaware duPont family and a short roster of America’s wealthiest—and most rabid—racists masquerading as environmentalists and eugenics benefactors: Mrs. Mary Averill Harriman, Major Leonard Darwin—the son of Charles Darwin, famous for his “Survival of the Fittest” natural selection philosophy—Mrs. John T. Pratt, Mrs. Walter Jennings, Dr. J. Harvey Kellogg, Henry Fairchild Osborn, Colonel William Draper and Mr. and Mrs. Cleveland H. Dodge.
This is what white science looks like.
"If you have to have someone who looks like you in the media in order for you to relate then maybe you’re the one who’s racist"
"children don’t see/care about race"
"Color doesn’t matter! It’s about the actor/story!"
"there are bigger issues to talk about than representation"
"they whitewashed because they need to make a profit and attract their target audience"
"It’s a European fairytale/story so of course the characters will be white!"
"whitewashing isn’t real"
"they considered and picked the best actor for the job"
(The best actor? More like the best we can do at this time.)
(It’s not the best actor when you exclude a racially ambiguous role to one race.)
"why do we need minorities in European stories!? they wouldn’t do a story about Africa with white actors!”
Adding this one on