#or like upholding the culture and bearing the burden of being a representative of one’s ethnicity no matter how connected or not you feel

[michi-chelle]

the dominican-american experience of learning and reading and hearing about your family’s roots but still feeling out of place and disconnected in the DR and in dominican spaces

[megashadowdragon]

whats the point of yamato

comments on youtube

Here's my take: the Wano Arc is about the "burden of inherited will." By this I mean something like, the burden of upholding the promises and dreams of those who came before. We've seen inherited will as an unambiguously good thing in the series so far, but the Wano Arc is trying to complicate the narrative, by showing what a burden it can be to take on the dreams of those who came before. And this theme isn't just in one storyline, it's laced throughout the Wano Arc, in the motivations of so many characters: * We have Momo struggling with the burden of living up to his father's legacy as a leader, and the burden of the throne of Wano. He's anguished over this, he weeps, because it's a burden to live up to someone as great as his father. * In Oden's flashback, we seem him struggle with the burden of his own father's dreams (that he become the Shogun, settle down, etc), only for him to eventually return and take on the burden of the country (literally, he puts his followers on his back!). * We have the Scabbards struggling with the burden of achieving Oden's dream of opening Wano's borders. They spend twenty years waiting and suffering, or travel across the sea and suffer, all for the sake of their leader's dream. We see Ashura-doji grow bitter under this burden, we see Denjiro mentally break, we see Kine'mon refuse to have a joyful reunion with his wife, all because they suffer under the burden of an inherited dream. * Orochi felt compelled to uphold the will of his ancestors and depose the Kozukis and throw the country into ruin. There's a reason we see his ancestors basically manipulate him into pursuing his path. They pass on their dream to him. * So obviously we have Luffy also taking on the dream of Oden, to defeat Kaido and Orochi, etc. But it's not a coincidence that in this arc we have two characters to whom Ace made promises: Tama and Yamato. They've become part of Luffy's burden, because he inherited Ace's will. (That's one way Yamato fits in) * But we also have Yamato struggling under the burden of a will she does not want to inherit, her father's. He wants her to be imprisoned, literally chained to a will that is not her own. That's quite the burden, I'd say. But there's another will she would prefer to inherit, obviously: Oden's. I think in the conclusion of this arc, we'll see characters (Luffy, probably) say something about inherited will being something chosen, it has to be a burden you choose to bear, not one forced on you. Yamato will probably feature in this conclusion in a few ways: (1) as a character foil to Momonosuke. It's not a coincidence that they're the exact same age and each want to take on the will that was forced on the other. Momo was swept across the world and travelled with Luffy in order to fulfill his role as Oden's son, but he wants to be Shogun. He takes on Kaido's appearance (via his Devil Fruit). Yamato was chained to Onigashima, and wanted nothing more to escape and travel the world with Luffy, but Kaido wants her to become the Shogun. She takes on Oden's appearance. The arc will conclude with something about Yamato and Momo freely entrusting each other with the dreams of their fathers, or something. (2) as a feature in Luffy choosing to uphold Ace's will. By taking her with him and reaffirming a promise with Tama, we'll see Luffy choose to take on Ace's will. In this way, we'll see that what makes a will truly inherited isn't a bond of blood or destiny, it's a bond of friendship, trust, et cetera. Yamato's storyline will be used to punctuate that theme for Luffy and Momo, the actual central characters of this arc.

I feel like Yamato’s storyline is learning about inherited will and not having to actually be someone (Oden) to carry on their will/dreams.

Hannya, which Yamato’s mask is based on, are well known in Japanese theatrical stage culture for representing characters who are the physical manifestation of twisted female souls.

Yamato seems to be inspired by Oscar François de Jarjayes, from the shōjo manga The Rose of Versailles, who is a woman raised by her father as if she were a boy in order to succeed him as the commander of the Royal Guard at the Palace of Versailles. 

an authors comment for chapter 945 oda talked about how he read rose of versailles and was surprised oscar was a woman 

The Shogun must be a male of Seiwa Genji lineage according to Japanese history so this explains why she is referred to as son.  Oda based Yamato on 2 people.  1) Yamato Takeru a crossdressing Japanese prince and 2) Oscar from Rose of Versailles.  Yamato Takeru being the son of Emperor Keiko who crossdressed to kill his enemies.  Oscar being a girl raised as a boy to succeed the throne.  Oda is mixing Japanese folklore with Rose of Versailles to tell a story of Kaido trying to force his daughter to be the Shogun/a boy.  Do you think I rip this from nowhere?  Chapter 945 if I recall correctly on VIZ Oda is on the authors comments speaking on Rose of Versailles.  Yamato wears a Hannya mask which originates from Noh theater and represents female obsession (Oden obsession) and I bet this arc has a theme of deliverance.  Not just deliverance from physical chains but familial bonds as well.  The people who refer to her as “he” miss the underlying themes the Shogun must be male and Kaido is probably upset he has no actual son.  Yamato does not want to be the Shogun and referring to the last chapter Kaido is trying to tell her what her fate is.  The Vivre Cards will not say (Male Heart) like in close reference to Kiku’s card and she will not come out and say “I am a man at heart!”  She uses the pronoun boku which is ambiguous and abnormal which is in reference to the “Oden” funny delusional act she has going on.  Coming chapters will reveal this more and more.  Since the combination of the title card saying daughter -> the Hannya mask -> explosive cuffs and the Shogun theme it was clear she was being bruteforced into something.

Not trying to speak for everyone here, but to say people use "he" because they don't pick up on themes is simply not the case. People use "he/him" pronouns because so far in the story, that is how Yamato has made clear that he would like to be referred to and so people use he/him pronouns out of respect for those desires. I'm not trying to say at all that I disagree with the themes/connections you've mentioned, but to say that you've "cracked the code" and you know better than Yamato on how they should be gendered is disrespectful to them. It may well be the case that everything you said is true and that by the end of the arc Yamato will wish to be referred to with she/her pronouns, but like I said to just assume this before it actually happens is disrespectful. Imagine refusing to use he/him pronouns for a trans-man because you know that their father always wanted a son and assuming their desire to use these pronouns only exists to validate their fathers wishes. I'm not trying to draw a one to one equivalence with this example, I get that One Piece is a story where information does just exist but is introduced with a specific purpose, I just hope I can better explain why many people believe he/him are the correct pronouns to use for Yamato at this time. Frankly, I think the presence of Kiku as a trans-women in this arc might be odas way of setting up the exact scenario you mentioned with yamato while still making sure he doesn't come across as invalidating trans identities. Hopefully that makes sense. Again I'm not trying to be argumentative, only trying explain why many people believe it is more respectful to use he/him pronouns at this time for yamato DESPITE the themes you've mentioned.

Quick fact check: Oscar wasn't raised as a boy to succeed the throne, she was a raised as a boy to become commander of the royal guards

This might not be accurate as I'm just saying off the top of my head but in a way, Yamato might represent wano itself. She was chained up and abused by Kaido like he does to wano in a sense.

Yamato is literally old name of Japan, lol

  Yamato by taking Oden legacy she is impersonating the man who's the main representation of wano to the world 

On a larger scale we are fighting to save wano from kaido

On a individual scale Yamato who disguises as Oden who represents wano is fighting to save herself from kaido 

It's like NAMI all over again 

A girl who is representing an entire population and territory is fighting to save herself and the people and territory she represents from a fish that keeps her and her territory enslaved

Her not being part of the mainland is symbolic to Wano exactly lol, isolated from the other world and chained there by Kaido for decades. She, like the people of Wano, has this black and white perception of Oden that they blindly follow without looking into why he did what he did. Even now people are putting Momo on some pedestal worth dying for without understanding who he is, similar to their past expectations of Oden for his dad. Yamato is doing the same with her declaration of dying for him based solely on his dad and the stuff in the journal.

Yamato's development seems to fall in parallel to Momo. Momo had to deal with the expectations of being Oden's son and his people want him to be just like Oden they don't see Momonosuke Kozuki. 

On the other hand Yamato similarly was thrust with a path set by Kaido her father but wants to be Oden this person who inspired Yamato to the point of worship that every action is posed with the question "what would Oden do."

The climax of both their arcs might be to just choose to be who they are and act as they would do not as their predecessors as they both could never be Oden for instance.

I sort of dislike how some people act like Yamato realizing not to “be oden” and Yamato joining the strawhats are mutually exclusive

if yamato does join the strawhats and is the 11th that would confirm the idea that yamato isnt trans  she just cosplays as oden due to idolizing him if you believe the MFMM theory due to people noticing that in east blue  the recruitment went zoro, nami, usopp, and sanji  in grand line it was chopper, robin, franky and brook a male female male male .

jinbe is the 10th who joined in new world  ( the male ) and it fits for him to be followed by the 11th a woman . ( so if yamato joins the strawhats and is the 11th ( meaning carrot doesnt join)  yamato isnt trans 

if yamato and carrot both join then yamato really is a transman

both okiku and yamato wore hannya masks

after okiku put on a hannya mask she revealed that she was a man in body but a woman in heart and a hannya mask represents female demon 

yamato was introduced as kaidos son while in a hannya mask but after she took it off revealed she was his daughter

"Yamato" (大和やまと?), meaning "Great Harmony", is an ancient name for Japan (originating from the Yamato Province) and can can also refer to the Yamato period of Japanese history, which lasted into the 8th century. Relating to that, Yamato is the dynastic name of the ruling Imperial House of Japan and further refers to the dominant ethnic group of Japan, the Yamato people. Otherwise:

Yamato Takeru is a legendary Japanese prince of the Yamato dynasty, prominent in mythology.

Yamato is the name of a prominent WWII-era Japanese battleship.

Yamato nadeshiko is a phrase that refers to the idealized image of a Japanese female.

[wisdomrays]

Worldly Means and The Criteria for Planning The Future

QUESTION: The Messenger of God enjoined being like a stranger or traveler in this fleeting world. Some Muslims of the early period regarded even planning what to eat the following day as a form of cherishing long-term worldly objectives and delusion of eternity. Considering the conditions of our time, however, making certain plans about the future is deemed as necessary, particularly at issues such as choosing which schools to attend and what profession to learn. How can we strike the balance at making plans for the future?

ANSWER: As it has been mentioned in the question as well, the noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did enjoin being like a stranger (gharib) or traveler (abiru sabil) in this world. The term “gharib” used in the Prophetic saying denotes a person who somehow leaves his or her hometown and migrates to somewhere else, thereby staying there for a while as a guest, and who has thus no deep relation with the things and people around. And the other term or phrase is “abiru sabil.” The root of the first word is ubur, which denotes journeying or crossing a road. As a matter of fact, every individual is a “traveler” journeying from the mother’s womb to childhood, from there to youth, maturity, to old age… from there to the grave—an intermediate realm between this world and the next, and finally (rise up from the grave to go) to the Plain of Great Gathering for judgment. Thus, the beloved Prophet counsels taking the journey of worldly life as if passing from one side of the road to the other.

The noble Prophet pointed to this same fact another time when he rested on a plain rough mat, which made marks on his body. With eyes full of tears, Umar ibn al-Khattab mentioned how the Sassanid and Roman kings lived (in luxury) and implied that the Prophet could benefit from worldly blessings. It is reported that the Messenger of God replied that he did not have anything to do with this world. The noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, compared his position in this guesthouse of the world to a traveler who takes shade under a tree for a while and then continues on his way. All of us know that had he wished so, the Companions would have brought anything they could find to make him feel comfortable. However, the Pride of Humanity, peace and blessings be upon him, likened himself to someone who stops temporarily under a tree for a rest and then goes on his journey, and this was the scope of his relation to the worldly life. He maintained this understanding until his blessed soul passed to the next world.

Fortunes spent for the sake of God

When the issue is seen with a holistic view and the commands of religion are taken as a whole, we understand that the noble Prophet does not tell us to absolutely neglect the world, but rather to refrain from indulging in worldliness in pursuit of lowly pleasures and delights. The following verse, for example, decrees that the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, is authorized to handle one-fifth of war gains: “And know that whatever you take as gains of war, to God belongs one fifth of it, and to the Messenger, and the near kinsfolk, and orphans, and the destitute, and the wayfarer (one devoid of sufficient means of journeying)” (al-Anfal 8:41). Even if the noble Prophet chose to take only one tenth out of the one fifth of the war gains for himself, he could have led a very prosperous life and lived in palaces. However, he preferred to lead his blessed life in a little cell instead. It was so little that, as his wife Aisha reported, when the Messenger of God stood in the Prayer at night and before prostration, he would touch his hand to the feet of Aisha, and only after our blessed mother receded her feet did he have enough space to prostrate. Imagine, he could not even find sufficient room for prostrating in his cell—let our souls be sacrificed for that cell. However, as we take into consideration the riches allocated to his use we see that he had the means to equip an entire army. He spent them for the sake of God and preferred to live an austere life. In terms of his personal life and abstention from worldly pleasures, he acted in such a careful, cautious, and measured way that he fulfilled the due of the virtuous conduct God Almighty demanded from him: “Pursue, then, what is exactly right (in every matter of the Religion) as you are commanded (by God)” (Hud 11:112).

The representatives of dignified contentment (Istighna)

Undoubtedly, the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, was a transcendent person with respect to his relation with God, his position, state, profundity, and immensity. He had such a lofty and different nature that he expressed how he felt delight in worship, as other people take delight in physical pleasures. To relieve his aching for worshipping his Lord, the Prophet would frequently ask his wives to be excused and get up in the middle of the night to be nourished from the fount of worship and devotion. In this respect, let alone comparing him to ourselves, even comparing him with the Companions is not right: no other person can be compared to him. And I dare say that even comparing the Archangel Gabriel with him is a mistake. As an angel, Gabriel did not bear any burdens related to carnal desires and physicality. In spite of bearing the burdensome side of human nature, the Prophet was far beyond angels in spiritual progress. It is for this reason that as the Prophet, millions of blessings and peace be upon him, returned from the Ascension back to live among us, he descended from his high horizons to the level of ours to convey objective truths for our understanding and spiritual life. When we look into the matter within these criteria, although nobody can be compared to him, we can say that believers should lead their personal lives in dignified contentment, in compliance with his teaching. Indeed, all the great figures who were true to his path preferred to live this way. Actually, not only people from the Muslim tradition, but also followers of others teachings who changed the fate of the societies to which they belonged, similarly lived a life of dignified contentment. In this respect, we can say that such virtues, which can be taken as a sign of greatness with respect to universal human values, are the same in almost everyone, but with one difference—in believing hearts, this virtue is more soundly established and it promises permanence, because they have Divine approval behind them. For some others, even though they temporarily possess virtues becoming of believers such as dignified contentment, self-sacrifice, and altruism, they do not necessarily promise continuity and permanence. And one thing that needs to be known is that God Almighty grants success in this world to anyone who possesses characteristics and qualities becoming of believers, because He treats His servants according to their good character and conduct. Therefore, even if someone is a saint flying miraculously in the air, God Almighty will not treat him in a way that becomes true believers, given that he acts in a lethargic or lazy way, or becomes a selfish one who runs after personal benefits; those who act thus fail to fulfill the meaning of being human in the true sense. Indulging in worldliness, leading a physical-oriented life, and acting upon animal desires are unacceptable for a believer, who should be proceeding toward realizing the God-given spiritual potential for human perfection. Obviously, such a lifestyle is not the way of the Prophet.

The way to eternalize transient means

Surely, today’s believers need not push aside everything about the world and live like ascetic dervishes in retreat. This is contradictory to the ideal of becoming a powerful community upholding justice; Muslims must try to have worldly means as much as they can. However, they must make use of the means they acquire in a benevolent way to eternalize them. At this point, I would like to express a feeling of mine: sometimes I imagine and wish that when I step into the room I find a great amount of money, out of nowhere, and distribute it to the people volunteering for benevolent services for humanity so that they can establish schools and cultural centers in different corners of the world and thus conquer hearts of people. This is just a dream of course. Since it is a dream, I realize no practical goodness with it. But let me point out that if such a dream did not belong to me but to a friend of mine, and if he shared this consideration with me, I would tell him that even such an imaginary action can bring you manifold rewards and blessings to be gained at worship. Sharing the inspirations of our heart with others, illuminating worlds with the torch in our hand, taking the beauties we learn from the Prophet to everywhere the sun shines upon, exerting ourselves with this thought, and becoming oriented to such a lofty goal even in our dreams are all very important.

Returning back to our main subject, though, let us reiterate that as far as worldly means are used correctly, there is nothing wrong with having them. However, adoration for one’s worldly goods, status, home, children, or carnal pleasures as if one worships them, leads a person toward worldly and otherworldly disaster. A person must adore and worship God Almighty only and love anything else solely for His sake. He must be the One to be remembered at the beginning and end of something and everything must be attached to Him. Otherwise, when we act in the name of physicality and our carnal side, everything will be condemned to our own narrowness and it will mean wasting ourselves and our God-given spiritual potential. A human being, who is as worthy as all the worlds and who is endowed with a vast potential to ascend to otherworldly ranks as great as the earth and sky, should not be condemned to such narrowness I think. One the contrary, he or she must run after eternity and seek His good pleasure all the time—so much so that a title of “conqueror” should not be anything desirable as far as it does not take one to God, as such a thing does not bear any meaning on its own. What makes an action valuable is the depth of a person’s sincere intention. An accomplishment will be truly valuable as far as it is meant to gain the rewards heralded by the noble Prophet, to hold Islam in esteem, and to share the values we learn from the Prophet with the entire world.

Intention as a determining factor

The same point holds true for the efforts directed to graduating from certain schools and performing certain jobs. In other words, if a person wishes to do something for the sake of their lofty ideals and pass through certain stages, they will naturally carry out what they need to do. For example, a student who wishes to have a good education must say, “I cannot go to the university without finishing high school. I cannot reach a good position to serve my people without finishing the university. I cannot be welcomed and respected without having such means to serve others. And if I do not become worthy of respect, I cannot do anything serious for the sake of my people and lofty ideals.” And a student must make such an intention from the very beginning.

We cannot stop ourselves from questioning previous generations and blaming them for having failed to see certain things, leaving gaps in certain fields, and losing continuously. But if we do not wish the next generation to question us in the same way, we must exert ourselves to fill the gaps left by the earlier ones and not let new gaps appear. We have to take certain pains in order not to receive righteous criticism from our children and grandchildren. What needs to be done first is to have a strong faith and to try not having any flaws in our worship, and then to attach everything we do to a sincere and sound intention. If this can be realized, a person’s studying at high school, finishing the university, and every other achievement they plan to do will be counted as worship and gain them blessings; because, whatever is the intention of attaining a goal, the means used to obtain it will assume the hue of that very intention. In this respect, everything that is done must be woven according to the pattern of a sound intention.

In conclusion, true believers never do—and must not do—anything in order to receive praise from others or for worldly concerns. They always strive for conveying the heavenly values distilled from their spiritual roots to others and make continuous efforts so that the representatives of these high values gain an esteemed status in the world. For this sake, they sometimes face difficulties, experience pain, and bend in two with suffering. But they know that their troubles and suffering for the sake of a sublime ideal will gain them so many blessings that such progress could not be attained even through a process of spiritual journeying.

[jamietijerina]

Jamie Tijerina for AD51 Delegate - Register to vote @ ademelections.com

I’m running for re-election as an Assembly District Delegate in District 51 and would be honored to have your vote! Vote to re-elect Jamie Tijerina for AD51 Delegate! Every 2 years, 14 representatives are elected for each district in CA. This year, the election will be fully VOTE BY MAIL due to the pandemic. To get a ballot and vote, you need to register before January 11th, 2021 by visiting http://www.ademelections.com. If you live in a different CA district, please register to vote for the delegates running in your area. You must be a Democrat. It takes less than 2 minutes to register, do it now to make sure you can cast your vote! After you register at http://www.ademelections.com, you’ll get a ballot in the mail. The ballot will include postage paid by the CA Democratic Party so you can complete and mail it back free, which you must do by January 28, 2021. If you don’t live in AD51, but live anywhere in the state of California, I urge you to register so you can vote for delegates in your local district. Registering to vote in this critical hyper-local election is important and will enhance your say in the direction of the party over the years to come. Assembly District Delegates are CA Democratic Party representatives who have a tangible say in the direction of the CA Democratic Party, voting on things like local candidate endorsements, party leadership, and the overall platform for the party. We also do Democratic party outreach and advocacy. —–

Official Candidate Statement

My name is Jamie Tijerina. I am a scientific researcher, a Specialist in Cytometry, and hold an MBA. I am a Latina-Middle Eastern-American millennial, bilingual in Spanish, raised in Northeast and Eastside communities of Highland Park, Lincoln Heights, and Garvanza.

I understand firsthand the struggles and systemic failures that our communities face. I have demonstrated that I will step up to represent the people so that the issues that are important to us are brought to the forefront and addressed with fact-based, data-guided solutions that will give the us the power to survive and THRIVE.

It is critical that we build technologically up to date solutions that are sustainable, future-proof, and just, with the next generation in mind. Millennials and their Gen Z counterparts are bearing the burdens brought upon us by the policies of yesteryear, and our communities in NELA and the Eastside are being decimated by COVID-19. I believe in policies backed by sound science to get us through this pandemic together.

As a delegate over the past 2 years in AD51, I focused on outreach to people who were less politically engaged, and focused on critical issues that were not prioritized. I was the only AD51 delegate to endorse Andrew Yang & UBI in the 2020 primary, representing all who support fresh ideas based on responsible use of facts and data, and who support new voices in the arena. We see that his proposals, like UBI, could have been a lifeline for workers in this pandemic if they were available to Americans.

As a Latina/Middle Eastern American, I was the only AD51 Delegate who was a member of the Arab American Caucus, supporting peace in the Middle East, advocating for support for Armenia in the current conflict, and advocating to solve issues having to do with representation such as bringing attention to the lack of a MENA category on the census. I was also a member of the Chicano Latino Caucus and continued my work in NELA as a Budget Advocate for Region 8 fighting the historic and systemic disinvestment that our communities have faced, and as a non-profit President fighting the erasure of Latino culture and history.

I have a proven track record of advocacy for our Northeast and Eastside neighborhoods on many issues including:

*Government Transparency *Student Loan Reform *Medicare for All *Housing Justice *Immigrant Rights *Environmental Justice *STEAM Advocacy *Universal Basic Income *Campaign Finance Reform *Upholding Net Neutrality *Investing in Municipal Broadband *Responsible preservation of historic and cultural resources

I want to continue my advocacy on these issues to ensure that our Democratic party is going in the right direction. I humbly ask for your vote to represent you as one of your AD51 Assembly District Delgates. #VoteForTheFuture.

[bigyack-com]

Will Instagram Ever ‘Free the Nipple’?

Photographers have learned to be inventive in evading Instagram’s ban on female nipples. They’ve used paint, glitter, hair and flower petals to obscure them. They’ve covered them up with leaves, cornstarch, a spatula, handbags, shot glasses, strands of bubble gum, and sand.Some have inserted a rectangular black censorship bar. Others have used digital editing tools to blur the nipples or overlay a patch of the model’s skin color to give the impression that she has no nipples at all.These artistic gymnastics are the result of Instagram’s community guidelines, which allow female nipples in paintings and sculptures, but not typically in photography. And they are related to a campaign — #Freethenipple — being waged by artists, activists and celebrities, and playing out on the social media platform itself.These Instagrammers are pushing the boundaries with doctored photographs, as well as posting unadulterated photos that test how far the platform is willing to go in censoring their artwork. It’s a cat-and-mouse game that the cat usually wins, since the cat has access to artificial intelligence and 15,000 people working around the world to review posts and look for banned material.“Censoring photography is invalidating it as an art form,” said Joanne Leah, a Brooklyn-based photographer who estimates that she has about one post removed every month. “Every time something gets censored, it feels like a punch in the gut.”Since Instagram’s ascent as a mainstream, image-centric social media platform, it has effectively turned its users into published photographers. It has also allowed artists, once at the mercy of galleries, to promote their work independently, as long as they abide by certain rules.There are plenty of risqué images allowed on the site. Photos of women in sheer tops — the shape of their nipples exposed — often stay up, as do some with the nipples craftily covered or altered. But bare nipples on a photograph of a woman are off limits, though Instagram says it makes allowances for users who make clear that the display of nudity is meant as a form of protest or to raise awareness for a cause. That’s why photos of mastectomy scarring and breastfeeding are allowed. (Instagram started allowing photos and videos of breastfeeding in 2014 after pressure from activists.)The same rules apply on Facebook, which owns Instagram. In defending its policies, the company emphasizes its vast global reach: 2.4 billion monthly users on Facebook, and over 1 billion on Instagram, both in 100 languages. In an email, Instagram’s head of public policy, Karina Newton, said that the site isn’t trying to “impose its own value judgment on how nipples should be viewed in society.” “We’re trying to reflect the sensitivities of the broad and diverse array of cultures and countries across the world in our policies,” Newton said.Instagram’s rationale for drawing a line between photography and other forms of fine art is that the nipples typically belong to living people, and the site cannot know for sure whether the subjects have given consent. Posting a photo of a marble Aphrodite doesn’t present the same problem for them.Pictures of genitals and “close-ups of fully nude buttocks” are also against the rules, but it’s the explicit exclusion of the female nipple that has drawn the fiercest objections.Rihanna, Miley Cyrus and Chrissy Teigen, who have tens of millions of followers each, have tested the Instagram censors by exposing their nipples in posts that were swiftly taken down by Instagram. But at the forefront of the movement have been artists who have put persistent pressure on Instagram to loosen its restrictions in a way, some of them acknowledge, that would run afoul of social custom. Free the Nipple has been a cause for years, and the hashtag on Instagram now aggregates more than four million posts. Leah, 41, has been communicating directly with representatives from Facebook for about a year and a half about her concerns over how their policy affects artists like her. So the company decided it was time for a meeting.Last month it hosted about two dozen artists and anticensorship activists at its offices in Lower Manhattan for a five-hour discussion with the company about Instagram’s policing of nudity in their work. The company representatives listened, but gave no signs of budging, according to several people who attended. The company told them that it was just keeping within the bounds of social propriety: If you walked down the street in New York, one employee explained, you wouldn’t see exposed female nipples on advertisements.One of those who attended, Micol Hebron, 47, an interdisciplinary artist in Los Angeles (Instagram paid for her travel), snapped a topless selfie outside the building and tried to post it after the meeting. Almost immediately, her Instagram account was shut down.Several years ago, after Facebook took down a topless photo of Hebron from an art exhibition about breast cancer awareness, she created what she calls a male nipple pasty — a circular cutout of a man’s nipple that a woman can copy and can stick on her own nipples.As Hebron’s pasty cleverly pointed out, Instagram’s ban does not extend to male nipples. In the real world, the female breast has had some success on the equal-rights front.In February, a federal appeals court in Denver decided against Fort Collins, Colo., which sought to uphold an ordinance banning women from going topless in public. In New York, a 1992 State Court of Appeals decision established women’s right to go topless in public for noncommercial reasons. But decisions elsewhere have let similar laws stay on the books because, unlike male chests, female chests were considered to be an “erogenous zone.”When it comes to nipples, there are “criteria” to help both human and technological reviewers identify a nipple as male or female, Instagram’s Newton said. The criteria include indicators of the person’s gender, an Instagram spokeswoman said. But Instagram stresses that the system is imperfect. “There are times that we can’t tell — and mistakes may be made,” Newton said.In July, Instagram introduced the option for users to appeal deleted content; before, users could appeal if their account had been deleted but not in response to individual posts having been removed. As the great democratizer of photography, Instagram has opened up a new chapter of art history. From depictions of the nursing Madonna in 14th-century Italy to Frenchwomen lounging in the nude in 16th-century paintings, bare breasts have long been an artistic preoccupation, the gender studies scholar Marilyn Yalom wrote in the 1997 book “A History of the Breast.”“Though breasts still carry an overload of cultural and sexual expectations, many women hope to see the day when their chests do not have to bear such a burden,” Yalom wrote.What is different about the current era of nude art is that women are often the ones wielding the camera or the paintbrush. Mona Kuhn, 49, a Brazilian-born photographer, whose work focuses on the human form and often captures nude figures, has had work exhibited at the Louvre and the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles. But on Instagram, she said, she has to hold back what she considers some of her most important pieces.“I cannot promote my work as much as some other person who does landscapes,” she said.Other artists have accepted the reality that they don’t have free rein on such a wildly popular, global platform. “No one forced us to use Instagram,” said John Yuyi, 28, who uses her own body, with nipples obscured, to make popular Instagram posts about human interaction with technology. “They can say, ‘if you don’t like our rules, you can find another social media.’”At Facebook’s meeting, some artists pressed the tech employees on the matter of transgender and nonbinary users posting topless images. Is it still a female nipple if the person no longer considers themselves female? What if their nipples used to be anatomically male, but they transitioned to being a woman?Last year, Rain Dove, a gender-nonconforming model with more than 360,000 Instagram followers, found themselves in a battle with the platform’s censors when they posted topless images with breasts exposed. In one video, they were playing basketball. In another, they were drinking from a gallon of milk, wearing only boxer briefs.Dove, 30, said in an interview that after Instagram took down two of the topless posts, they would repeatedly republish them, writing in the caption that because Dove did not consider themselves female, their nipples weren’t female either. In the caption’s text, Dove threatened to take legal action if Instagram continued to remove their posts, and eventually, the bare-chested images were allowed to stay.“No one’s head exploded,” Dove said. “We’re all going to be fine!”Newton said that if Instagram’s content reviewers have context signaling that a user identifies as a man or nonbinary (for example, if the user states their pronouns), nipple exposure is allowed. And if a transgender woman posts an image of their exposed nipples, Instagram will remove it. But Instagram is not showing any signs of relaxing its general ban on female nipples. So artists have begun to factor that into their work, even as #freethenipple lives on.Amanda Charchian, a commercial and artistic photographer who shoots nudes, often obscures women’s nipples with pinpoints of color or a blurring feature. Charchian, 31, is now working on a series that involves her applying paint to photographs of nude women and architecture, and she said that she feels Instagram’s restrictions creeping into her artistic process.“When there’s a nipple, I think to myself, ‘Should I cover it or not?’” she said. “That’s the infiltration of Instagram censorship on my mind and my creative decision-making.” Source link Read the full article

[republicstandard]

Horror Movie Villains: The White Male as Monstrous Other

The White male has become the monstrous Other in his own nation, a nation he does not recognize and that no longer recognizes him. In America, his invisible suffering finally found a voice after one mention of Rosie O’Donnell changed everything.

Be-cucked and floundering, the Republican establishment looked on in horror as the enigmatic billionaire Donald Trump flicked their testicle-dice on his rear-view mirror. After his win, with the commentariat scratching their heads as to how they could’ve missed all of the signs the much-maligned American hinterland was fed up with being the lone societal punching bag, various coastal elites traversed what they regard as the backwoods backwaters of the nation ostensibly looking for answers, but mostly voyeuristically providing “decline porn” and freak show-peeping to the dinner party set back home. There was no attempt to understand who these people are, or why they are not even so much angry, though they are—furious in fact, but more betrayed and dismayed.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The critic Robin Wood argues that horror films usually elicit our interest in, and sympathy for, the monster. Usually these films become the vehicle for the monster, the other, that is tormenting the normal members of a society. There is typically the normal, moral hero who must stand against this creature. Robin Wood argues that in these horror films, the monster is usually the center of interest and sympathy from the audience. It is the strangeness and the complexity of the monster that elicits the interest in it rather than in the moral character, the character supposedly so like us; however, the argument that the monster is a center of sympathy from the audience is a far more Byzantine proposition.

Typically cast out of normal society, the monster returns to have its revenge upon those that define the social norms. For example, in John Carpenter’s Halloween, Michael Myers has been sequestered away from society for the grisly murders of his family, confined to an asylum. On the anniversary of these murders, he returns home to wreak havoc. He is the Other, the social pariah who society has turned away from. He has a seeming singularity of purpose, but there is more to him behind that mask. This elicits interest in the psyche of this so-called monster: what are his motivations, his back-story, et cetera?

As Robin Wood would argue, Myers’s traumatic background should elicit sympathy from the audience. However, this is not wholly accurate. The assertion that horror films elicit interest in the monster is almost wholly true; the assertion that the monster is a source of sympathy from the audience is another issue entirely. How else do we explain the alien in Alien? It is a creature wholly unlike us as humans. Its motivations and back-story are very engaging, as it is so unlike us, and is a complete unknown (or was until Prometheus and Alien: Covenant). Yet the notion that it inspires sympathy from the audience is absurd. When the alien is finally destroyed, it pleases the audience. The creature seems driven to do one thing: kill.

Perhaps there is more, but we are incapable of understanding the actual thought process of such a creature. It is seemingly the complete embodiment of the Other. It does not look like us, it does not act like us, it does not communicate like us, and, most critically, it doesn’t think like us—at least not on the surface. The alien is a parasitic organism that thrives on the destruction of others. It has an incubation period inside of another live organism before killing it and effectively hatching. From there it feeds and grows.

The alien is driven to thrive and survive despite what havoc it may wreak on the ecosystem around it. So is the alien really that much different from much of humanity? Physically it bears absolutely no resemblance to us, but its will to survive drives it to kill, feed, and re-produce—the baseness of which humans hate to acknowledge, but without which our species would not survive, either. The alien is amoral and is not burdened by a guilt complex or notions of whether it is wrong to kill. It is an uncomfortable idea for the vast majority of society. It is very difficult for us to really have any sympathy for the alien, which speaks to the value system of our society and the degree to which we attempt to sugar-coat and ignore the more unsavory aspects of our existence.

Perhaps sympathy could be derived from the fact that it would not survive if it did not feed, but it’s hard to sympathize with something that has to continually destroy multiple lives to subsist. The alien is far more like us than we would care to admit, but how can we possibly excuse countless killings/murders despite the monster needing to survive or having a troubled childhood like Michael Myers?

And what of situations where we may find ourselves subconsciously rooting for the monster as we do in Silence of the Lambs for Hannibal Lecter? Thanks to his intellect and charm, is that more a reflection of Lecter or of the audience? What does that say about us? Additionally, can we truly call what we feel for Lecter sympathy, or perhaps more of a camaraderie? The point is this: in horror films the monster is virtually always a subject of interest due to its complexity; any resulting sympathy is usually fleeting as a consequence of the function of its existence as the projected Other more than anything else. The monster or Other serves a purpose—in its inscrutability, it is easy to project our fears and anxieties, and as it is so unlike us, it makes it easier to banish or kill. There is a terrific episode of Black Mirror that deals with this notion of “Otherizing” in war-time. As with the alien in Alien, there is perhaps more linking the monster to the audience than the audience would care to admit. Robin Wood’s statement is the statement of someone assuming an absolute position as critic, removed from immersion in the art. A feeling of sympathy is a reflection of removal from a situation.

This is why the study of Alien and Silence of the Lambs is so interesting. The two monsters could, on the surface, not be more different. Yet they both inhabit a similar space in our cultural ideology. The alien is truly not us; it is another species. Hannibal Lecter has committed one of the greatest taboos in Western society: cannibalism. Lecter may not be able to help his cannibalistic nature; but in a way, he is more inhuman than the alien. There is a certain amount of ritual involved in his killings. He is so cold and calculating on the one hand that he is almost inhuman. Yet he is also the epitome of what humans aim for: he is cultured, he is intellectual, and he values things like art and classical music. In this respect, the alien has no human characteristics, yet it is motivated by a profoundly base desire for survival. The alien forces us to consider what we would do in order to survive. It is difficult to forgive the alien for surviving when its life costs numerous human lives, but is this really so different from humanity? The survival of humanity revolves around the consumption of other organisms. How are humans any different to the alien than cattle or chickens are to humans?

Hannibal Lecter’s consumption of human flesh is a luxury, as he does not have to eat it strictly from a needs standpoint—there are plenty of other food options available. Yet his need is motivated by something deeper; this is the epitome of a cultured human being governed by base desires. He is compelled to consume human flesh simply because psychologically he feels that he has to. What would we do if there was no other option to survive other than to consume human flesh? The aversion to cannibalism is quite pronounced in Western culture, and for good reason, but in New Guinea the Highland tribes raid the coastal tribes and very often consume their flesh. The notion of cannibalism sickens us, but it also fascinates us. The multifaceted elements of Lecter absolutely captivate us as an audience.

Most horror films on the surface are a force of good pitted against a force of evil. Clarice Starling is a force for good—she is moral and she is a servant of the law. She upholds the law and thus is a reflection of our morals as a society. Hannibal Lecter and Buffalo Bill are the Other; their behavior (read: crimes) is completely unacceptable according to our cultural values. We do not condone eating people or killing them and fashioning accessories out of their skin. We do condone bringing these people to justice according to our laws and confining them away from the rest of society.

In the vast majority of horror films, it is the monster and not the hero that elicits the interest because of that complexity. There is a certain one-dimensionality to the good guy. In the case of Silence of the Lambs we have Clarice, who despite getting help from Hannibal Lecter to catch Buffalo Bill, does not deviate from her ultimate goal of catching the killer and bringing him to justice. Despite her relationship with Hannibal, when he manages to get free from prison, Clarice does not maintain the collaborative spirit. Rather, despite the long odds, she attempts to get him to reveal something about his location over the phone. She does not compromise her morals. Conversely, Hannibal does not have an ideology as such that he represents. He is the ultimate monkey wrench, a walking paradox; Hannibal is a man both governed by his most base of desires, yet completely in touch with the most refined aspects of culture.

Alien represents an interesting interpretation of this hypothesis as well. The film pits two forces, the alien and Ripley and her ship-mates, against each other for survival. Ultimately, though, it becomes a showdown between Ripley and the alien. Toby Young writes;

“Ripley’s extraordinary resources echo the huge reserves of the alien… Unlike the male members of the crew, Ripley is clear-sighted and level-headed. She sizes up the threat immediately and recognizes - and is prepared to do - what is necessary to defeat it.”

Ripley, interestingly, exhibits stereotypically masculine characteristics, as does the alien-as-provider—yet both are female. Ripley has a single-minded purpose, to defeat the alien and survive, and although the alien has a similar purpose, its status as the Other, so physically unlike humanity in appearance and origin, elicits disgust from the audience. Additionally, the fact that the alien is hardly ever seen for more than a few chaotic or darkened seconds leaves a considerable amount up to the imagination. The use of light and dark is a very Gothic motif.

That same fascination with back-story, the unseen, and the monster extends to Silence of the Lambs. We see very little of the true horrors of Hannibal Lecter in the film, and perhaps that is why it is so easy to be seduced by his humor and charm. It isn’t until the countless other sequels that we get more than a glimpse into the depths evil that this man commits. The idea of his actions being off-screen, his past shrouded in mystery, so much of this man unseen, is a very Gothic idea. David Sexton writes:

Another bloodline passes through Stoker’s Dracula. We learn in Hannibal that, like Dracula, Lecter is a central European aristocrat. His father, too, was a count and he believes himself to be descended from a twelfth-century Tuscan named Bevisangue (blood-drinker). Like Dracula, Lecter drains his victims. After meeting him for the first time, Clarice Starling feels ‘suddenly empty, as though she had given blood’. Lecter, like Dracula, has superhuman strength; he commands the beasts, and he lives in the night. Barney, the warder, tells Clarice on her second visit that Lecter is always awake at night, ‘even when his lights are off’. Many of his physical attributes resemble those of Dracula. ‘His cultured voice has a slight metallic rasp beneath it, possibly from disuse’, we are told in The Silence of the Lambs. Dracula, says Stoker, speaks in a ‘harsh, metallic whisper’. Dracula’s eyes are red, Jonathan Harker realizes when he first meets him, in the guise of a coachman. Later, when he sees Dracula with his female acolytes, he says:

‘The red light in them was lurid, as if the flames of hell-fire blazed behind them.’

So too:

‘Dr. Lecter’s eyes are maroon and they reflect the light in pinpoints of red. Sometimes the points of light seem to fly like sparks to his center.’

As with the alien in Alien the true horror and fascination is with the unseen. With everything shrouded in darkness, there is a mystery about these monsters, and there is also a tinge of spectacle. Continue Sexton, “Lecter is the face that looks back at us out of our own boredom. He is our monster, the evil we embrace for our diversion. And he feeds on us.” Both Hannibal and the alien, while ostensibly the Other, are also a reflection of the dark underbelly of our society. They were born out of the imaginations of members of this society and reflect the things that we want to keep buried. Sexton elaborates:

In Hannibal, this idea is made explicit in a manner distinctly reminiscent of the accusation embedded in ‘Au Lecteur’. Lecter attends the exhibition of Atrocious Torture Instruments, but not to look at the exhibits. He faces the other way, back at the spectators, for his thrills. ‘The essence of the worst, the true asafœtida of the human spirit, is not found in the Iron Maiden or the whetted edge; elemental ugliness is found in the faces of the crowd,’ the oracular narrative voice proclaims.

Indeed, the films are our spectacle, and they drag the evil into the theatres, forcing the audience to question their very nature.

We are pleased when the alien is destroyed, and when Buffalo Bill is brought to justice, but what about the typical response to Lecter? The audience feels a certain camaraderie with him; they delight in his ability to outsmart everyone, and they are seduced by his charms. Yet what if Hannibal was a real man, how would the general public regard him? The alien is an outright monster, completely inhuman. Hannibal looks like any of us, yet his crimes are arguably more heinous, more, dare I say, inhuman. In reality, a man like Hannibal would delight in the media spectacle that his actions would create; the general public would both revile him and be drawn to him. In our culture of spectacle, life-as-cinema blurs the distance from the screen to the viewer. Just as Robin Wood assumes the stance of the absolute critic, so, too, do most audiences ostensibly assume the stance of the entertained—and yet there cannot be a total detachment. Lecter, like the audience, needs the public spectacle, the attention, to survive, just as the alien needs organisms to survive and lay its eggs. They are strictly parasites. Returning again to Sexton:

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Barney warns Dr. Chilton, as he says goodbye to Lecter, that his new guards don’t know how to deal with him. ‘You think they’ll treat him right? You know how he is—you have to threaten him with boredom. That’s all he’s afraid of. Slapping him around’s no good.’ But ennui is not just his fear—‘Any rational society would either kill me or give me my books’—it’s his origin. Lecter uses his own boredom as a threat to others. When he is extracting the story of the silence of the lambs from Clarice and she is not delivering what he wants, he says;

‘If you’re tired, we could talk towards the end of the week. I’m rather bored myself.’

Without the attention, Lecter exists in a vacuum: his works, his psychological ploys, go unnoticed. He would simply wither away. The devouring of human flesh is symbolic with both monsters. As they are borne out of us, in a sense they are both practicing a form of cannibalism.

Thank you for reading Republic Standard. We publish this magazine and the Freebird Forum because we believe in free speech- but it doesn't come cheap! Will you make a small donation towards our running costs? You can make a difference by clicking here.

If you love free speech, we are building the platform for you! Read about how we are building FreebirdTV, open source video hosting with no thought-policing.

The Republic Standard Web Shop is now open! Every piece of merchandise you buy is a victory against the nerds.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2Kmrex8 via IFTTT

[muzaffar1969]

http://ift.tt/2mYxFNU

It is easy, sometimes almost automatic, to put groups of people into categories. It simplifies our lives and is a relatively quick but reductionist way to understand the behaviour of others. As a cognitive and emotive shortcut, stereotyping reduces the amount of mental processing we have to do by relying on simplistic generalisations. And incomplete as these kinds of categorisations may be, they tend to stick.

In this way, a leader’s image can become almost inseparable from the organisation he or she leads. Consumers’ perception of companies is often influenced by corporate leaders’ actions and what they communicate. Examples may include the innovative appeal of Steve Jobs at Apple or (more negatively) Uber whose reputation has suffered from the recent behaviour of its leader Travis Kalanick.

Similarly, the actions of a country’s leaders may be viewed as representative of the character and beliefs of its people and have an impact on how that country is perceived by the rest of the world. The behaviour and actions of former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, for example, very much underscore some negative stereotypical patterns often ascribed to Italians, including being lecherous, over-sexed (nod to the “bunga bunga” parties), endemically corrupt, and not to forget, being in bed with the Mafia. It would be fair to say that 20 years of having Berlusconi at the centre of the political system in Italy has had a very negative impact on the country’s “brand image.”

“America First”

Although Italy may be an important country on the world stage, it’s nothing in comparison to America, the most powerful (economically or militarily) country in the world. In that role, America has always been a very attractive target for stereotyping.

Presently, its incumbent president, Donald Trump, is epitomising the “Ugly American”: a stereotype which conjures up Americans abroad who are noisy, thoughtless, uncultured, ignorant, lacking in humility, and self-righteous. They are the ones who speak about other cultures in a condescending manner, appear to be uninformed about the country they are visiting, expect everyone to speak English, and like to brag about “how we do things in America.”

Trump’s slick media campaign of “Make America Great Again” is reinforcing this image, seriously damaging the reputation of America abroad. In an alpha-male display at his presidential inauguration, stating that “from this day forward it is going to be only America first, America first”, Trump sent an alienating shot heard around the world.  His dark Weltanschauung, full of fear, prejudice, and mistrust, is compromising America’s ability to set the example on a world stage.

Throughout his campaign, and now in office, Trump seems to be unwilling to recognise that he lives in an interconnected, networked world where international trade spurs economic growth and create bridges across countries and cultures.

He seems to be unable to accept that what makes America truly great – what created a “brand” and stereotype that attracted people from around the globe and enabled the U.S. to take on a worldwide leadership position - derives from its universal values that uphold other people’s rights. Its brand was based on the country’s system of justice, educational system, and ability to provide economic opportunities for all; the creative abilities of its immigrant workers; its religious freedom; free press, ability to create upward mobility; highly inventive entrepreneurs; unrivalled talent in innovation; and ability to engage the people of other nations.

America’s greatness, according to JFK

Trump’s reputation, words and actions (which are eroding this strong brand value) are very different from John F. Kennedy, an exceptional American president who emphasised what made America great in his inaugural address in which he stated, “Let every nation know …that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” This is the kind of speech that lifts up the spirit, unites and challenges people to dream.

In 1958, when the bestseller The Ugly American appeared, Kennedy (who was then a senator) liked it so much that he took out a full-page advertisement in The New York Times, identifying it as a compelling critique of “the Americans who go overseas for the various governmental agencies, their activities abroad, and the policies they are entrusted to carry out.” Subsequently, he sent a copy of the novel to every member of the Senate, as a cautionary tale against negative stereotypes.

We can always hope that Trump belatedly will realise the importance of how to “brand” America differently, and to recognise - reviewing other experiments of populism - that populist regimes set the stage for economic decline; that his behaviour and actions are not a prescription for greatness; and, most importantly, that his leadership style isn’t helping the “brand” that is America. Unfortunately, however, most aspects of his character seem to be set in stone.

A disastrous example

Corporate leaders would do well to learn from the differences between the leadership of Trump and Kennedy and recognise that a leader’s reputation, actions and performance are intertwined with that of the organisation which they lead. Traits such as honesty and humility have positive impacts on how an organisation is perceived by business partners, shareholders, prospective customers and investors, and can ultimately affect the success and influence of the organisation. On the flipside, traits such as Machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism, can do enormous damage. Trump’s unholy adherence to the kinds of behaviour described in books like The Ugly American and George Orwell’s 1984 is everything that the U.S. doesn’t stand for. These kinds of activities do not make America great. On the contrary, they make dystopian society a reality.

Manfred Kets De Vries is the Distinguished Clinical Professor of Leadership Development & Organisational Change at INSEAD and The Raoul de Vitry d'Avaucourt Chaired Professor of Leadership Development, Emeritus. He is the Founder of INSEAD's Global Leadership Centre and the Programme Director of The Challenge of Leadership, one of INSEAD’s top Executive Development Programmes. His most recent books are: You Will Meet a Tall, Dark Stranger: Executive Coaching Challenges; How to Make Sure Your Organization Lives Happily Ever After; and Riding the Leadership Rollercoaster: An Observer’s Guide.

Follow INSEAD Knowledge on Twitter and Facebook

Title: 

Lessons from the Return of the Ugly American

Blog: 

INSEAD Blog

Category: 

Leadership & Organisations

Main Category: 

Leadership & Organisations

April 12, 2017

', 'twitter': 'Tweet', 'google': '

', 'linkedin': ''+'cript>' }; for (var i in networks) { element = document.querySelector('[data-share="' + i + '"]'); if (element) { element.innerHTML = networks[i]; } } }());

', 'twitter': 'Tweet', 'google': '

', 'linkedin': ''+'cript>' }; for (var i in networks) { element = document.querySelector('[data-share="' + i + '"]'); if (element) { element.innerHTML = networks[i]; } } }());

April 12, 2017 at 08:53AM http://ift.tt/2o3hCLh from webeditor http://ift.tt/2o3hCLh