Rasta TimesCHAT ROOMArticles/ArchiveRaceAndHistory RootsWomen Trinicenter
Africa Speaks.com Africa Speaks HomepageAfrica Speaks.comAfrica Speaks.comAfrica Speaks.com
InteractiveLeslie VibesAyanna RootsRas TyehimbaTriniView.comGeneral Forums
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 18, 2018, 01:49:39 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
25681 Posts in 9837 Topics by 982 Members Latest Member: - Ferguson Most online today: 68 (July 03, 2005, 11:25:30 PM)
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

 11 
 on: May 15, 2018, 03:45:27 AM 
Started by News - Last post by Leanna
I did have a reasoning with someone about this issue. I agree there are similarities between Makini's hair situation and this students dress code. Also, I think the professor's opinion on how the student should dress is rooted in flawed notions of respectability and morality and student protesting it is displaying that she does hold those views. In my reasoning with the individual noted it is the professor's right to give that opinion and the students right to protest it and I agree. I saw that opinion as a part of policing women's bodies. That opinion was about sexism and with Makini her colleague's opinion was about racism.

 12 
 on: May 15, 2018, 03:34:31 AM 
Started by News - Last post by Makini
The reasons the lecturer gave -distracting males- and the student -morality- continue to be ways to police the female body. Why should females dress to make males and other females comfortable if they themselves are comfortable and know the work they are presenting. I do however think attire choice should reflect the seriousness of the space and denim shorts does not first come to mind. However, the perception of seriousness is so vague, abstract, and can be very Eurocentric/Victorian/pedantic. Distraction in a general sense should be a consideration like wearing “gogo” lights on your head may be one person's idea of distraction or denim shorts another.  It would be interesting to hear the follow up given that she deleted the fb post.

Interestingly, the department where I currently study is trying to address such issues. I’ve seen Beyonce in tour wear in presentations about antibiotics resistance and puppy pictures come across screens during presentations...which has been somewhat a mockery the way they were included. But more to do with attire, last week a student who wears very dark shades was asked by her supervisor for them to be removed during her proposal seminar. I was not there but the teacher's argument was professionalism and the student's argument was "I’ve worn it in exams with no issue"...it definitely stirred up against the student who along with two siblings are seen as troublesome and arrogant.

Finally, the guidelines about attire can be very subjective. An east Indian accountant suggested before my proposal seminar, a few years ago that I should not wear an afro ...but I did. I saw on her face that it made her uncomfortable that I did not take her unsolicited advice. The same supervisor who told the student about the sunglasses once said in the kitchen in an open discussion that an afro is not a professional hairstyle. Also, many may think its "distracting", so these are good conversations to have about body image, identity and freedom of expression.

 13 
 on: May 14, 2018, 08:22:02 PM 
Started by News - Last post by Nakandi
I would be interested in knowing what the dress code is. If it is clear on how to show up then I would be interested in knowing why the student chose to go against it during the test run, to begin with.

IF the institution has a dress code then I feel some kind of way about dragging in the male gaze. It is one thing to be inappropriately dressed as per a code, it is another if it is because males will be distracted. 🙄

 14 
 on: May 14, 2018, 08:16:41 PM 
Started by News - Last post by amandalewis
I think this article has two sides, the professor and the student.

The Professor: In the world we live in, appearance unfortunately plays a part in how we are viewed, prejudged and interpreted. Was it the student's intention to dress similarly on the actual day of presentation? I do not know. If the professor assumed that the student would dress in this manner, then a general reminder could have been given to all the students at the end of the class regarding their dress code on presentation days. And yes, I believe that the statement was made partly because she was a female; would a male student be addressed regarding his attire or even in the same manner? I do not know.

The student: I personally disagree with the way the student managed the situation. Storming out of class was very immature of her and she did not stay to hear the rest of what was being said so she could factor it into her reaction. Does colourism have a role to play? I believe so. The student is light-skinned, and most likely white privilege has done a lot for her. Although she is from a minority group she may have still gotten away with a lot.

The point the student made by stating that females should not be judged by their attire is true. However, understanding the times we live in, one will understand that compromise in some cases is needed to effect change.

 15 
 on: May 14, 2018, 07:51:20 PM 
Started by News - Last post by News


Cornell Student Delivers Presentation In Underwear After Professor Criticizes Choice Of Clothes

By Pritha Paul
May 11, 2018 - ibtimes.com


A Cornell University student stripped down to her undergarments during a thesis presentation Saturday after her professor criticized her choice of clothes during one of the test runs of the presentation.

During a rehearsal of the presentation, Letitia Chai’s professor Rebekah Maggor asked whether the denim cutoff shorts she was wearing was appropriate for the occasion.

“The first thing that the professor said to me was ‘is that really what you would wear?” Chai wrote in a Facebook post about the incident. “The professor proceeded to tell me, in front of my whole class, that I was inviting the male gaze away from the content of my presentation and onto my body,” she wrote in a presently-deleted Facebook post on May 2.

She told the Cornell Sun she was “so taken aback that I didn’t really know how to respond.” While most of her peers in “Acting in Public: Performance in Everyday Life” class took her side, questioning Maggor’s perception of men, one of the students defended the professor’s remarks, saying Chai should dress more conservatively for the sake of morality.
Full Article : ibtimes.com

 16 
 on: May 13, 2018, 06:31:57 PM 
Started by News - Last post by Nakandi
The racism and colorism that Banks alludes to in her commentary are real issues with a long history. However, her own (very recent) anti-black/African history overshadows the legitimacy of her concern of the systemic abuse of black women.

The approach also reminds me of the conversation on Bruno Mars and cultural appropriation. Like this commentary, the conversation on Mars put the onus of changing the system on him. It might be easier to focus the blame on individuals, but it is misplaced. We cannot expect these individuals to be activists* or anymore politically correct than most people. This does not mean they are merely victims with no role at all.

*Even activists can be more about lip service/appearance than actual change.

This is an example of how the best approach to affecting change is by working on oneself. http://www.rastaspeaks.com/Rasta/consciouschange.html

 17 
 on: May 13, 2018, 03:42:58 AM 
Started by News - Last post by Ayinde
Some of the issues raised by Azealia Banks about colorism as it exists in the entertainment industry, including Hip Hop, is no secret: the industry demonstrably prefers light skin over black. As can be seen in most Hip Hop videos, Dark skin Blacks receive only token representation. It is quite possible that if Azealia Banks looked like a Beyoncé or a Rhianna, she would have been much more popular, and perhaps richer too. Those aspects of her comments are quite valid. Where she and I part ways is her demeaning of Cardi B to make these points.

In one of her responses, she spoke about Cardi B's use of facial contouring to appear attractive. But, why go there? Why bring up the way in which Cardi B speaks or her grammatical inaccuracies as though she should be silent?

In many respects, the media, with the complicity of Hip Hop culture, ensures that Brown skin, Light Skin and even White people are promoted over Dark-skin Blacks with more talent. If Azealia Banks and others are really concerned about who represents Black culture, then they should also look at what is being promoted within Black culture that contributes to these prejudices. Banks must also look at her own complicity in promoting Eurocentric values and ideas of beauty. We should examine the obvious weave hairstyles, skin bleaching and body augmentation that is now a trope in Hip Hop/Rap culture. None of this really encourages the appreciation of Dark-skin.

Highlighting these issues can encourage important discussions. However, attempting to shame someone because of their physical appearance or their lack of verbal dexterity to articulate in the manner of former colonisers, fuels all the wrong things that we should be fighting against.
---Ayinde

 18 
 on: May 12, 2018, 10:43:05 PM 
Started by News - Last post by News
Cardi B Deletes Her Instagram Account After Responding to Azealia Banks' Insults

By Mitchell Peters
May 12, 2018 - billboard.com


The feud between Cardi B and Azealia Banks has reignited -- and it's getting pretty messy.

During a visit to The Breakfast Club on Friday (May 11), the always outspoken Banks threw out some major insults about Cardi, calling her everything from an “illiterate, untalented rat” to a "caricature of a black woman."

“Two years ago, the conversation surrounding black women’s culture was really reaching an all-time high,” Banks told the radio show's hosts, referencing Beyonce's 2016 album, Lemonade. “There was just this really, really, really intelligent conversation going on nationally and then everything just kind of changed and then it was like Cardi B.”
Full Article : billboard.com


Azealia Banks Talks New Single, The State Of Female Rap, RZA, Donald Trump + More


Cardi B Deletes Instagram & Locks Twitter After Slamming Azealia Banks

By Kyle Eustice
May 12, 2018 - hiphopdx.com


Cardi B and Azealia Banks’ perceived beef just got taken up a notch. After Banks chided the “Bodak Yellow” rapper for her bad grammar and spelling during her Breakfast Club interview on Friday (May 11), Cardi responded to Banks’ comments on Twitter.

Cardi then deleted her Instagram and made her Twitter account private, seemingly fed up with the drama. But before she made her exit, Cardi sent out a barrage of tweets defending herself.

“Why is it that male rappers can speak how they want act how they want but people constantly bash me for it?” she began. “Why do i feel like i have to apologize for being who i am? talking how i talk and being what ya call “Ghetto” wtff. LEAVE ME ALONE!”
Full Article : hiphopdx.com





 19 
 on: May 10, 2018, 09:52:02 PM 
Started by News - Last post by News
Nothing can compare with the U.S. “war on terror.”

By: Noam Chomsky - telesurtv.net
(This article was orginally published in 2015)


The nuclear deal reached between Iran and P5+1 was greeted with relief and optimism throughout the world, with striking exceptions: the U.S. and its closest regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, which are consumed with visceral fear and hatred of all things Iranian. In the U.S, even sober commentary declares Iran to be “the gravest threat to world peace” and warns that we must be vigilant, given the exceptional gravity of the Iranian threat.

It is perhaps of some interest that the world sees the matter differently: it is the United States that is regarded as the gravest threat to world peace (WIN/Gallup). Far below in second place is Pakistan. Iran is ranked well below, along with Israel, North Korea, and Afghanistan.

It is worthwhile to explore the reasons for the concerns of the rejectionist triad. What exactly is the colossal threat of Iran?

The threat can hardly be military. U.S. intelligence years ago concluded that Iran has low military expenditures by regional standards and that its strategic doctrines are defensive, designed to deter aggression; and that “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.”

Details are provided in an April study of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which finds that the Arab Gulf States outspend Iran on military weaponry by a factor of almost 10 to 1. The qualitative difference is even greater. The Arab Gulf states have “some of the most advanced and effective weapons in the world [while] Iran has essentially been forced to live in the past, often relying on systems originally delivered at the time of the Shah,” which are virtually obsolete. The imbalance is of course even greater with Israel, which, along with the most advanced U.S. weaponry and its role as a virtual offshore military base of the global superpower, has a huge stock of nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, there is deep concern about Iran’s aggression. In his letter to Congress to rally support for the deal, President Obama assured them that Washington “would unilaterally maintain economic pressure and deploy military options if needed to deter Iranian aggression,” the NY Times reported. Obama did not give examples of Iranian aggression, but there is one: in 1971, the U.S-backed Shah invaded two islands belonging to the United Arab Emirates, the only case in several hundred years.

Other concerns are Iran’s role as “the world’s leading supporter of terrorism,” primarily its support for Hezbollah and Hamas. Whatever one thinks about them or other beneficiaries of Iranian support, Iran hardly ranks high in support for terrorism worldwide, even within the Muslim world. Among Islamic states, Saudi Arabia is well in the lead as a sponsor of Islamic terror, not only by direct funding wealthy Saudis but even more by the missionary zeal with which the Saudis promulgate their Wahhabi-Salafi version of Islam. ISIS is an extremist offshoot of Saudi religious extremism and its fanning of jihadi flames.

In generation of Islamic terror, however, nothing can compare with the U.S. “war on terror,” which has helped to spread the plague from a small tribal area in Afghanistan-Pakistan to a vast region from West Africa to Southeast Asia. The invasion of Iraq alone escalated terror attacks by a factor of seven in the first year, well beyond even what had been predicted by intelligence agencies. Drone warfare against marginalized and oppressed tribal societies also elicits demands for revenge, as ample evidence indicates. And current plans are to increase drone flights by 50 percent, doubtless increasing the estimated 3000 or more killed.

No serious analyst believes that Iran would ever use a nuclear weapon, thus suffering instant destruction. There is however real concern that a nuclear weapon might fall into jihadi hands – not from Iran, where the threat is slight, but from U.S. ally Pakistan, where it is very real. Two leading Pakistani nuclear scientists, Pervez Hoodbhoy and Zia Mian, warn that increasing fears of “militants seizing nuclear weapons or materials and unleashing nuclear terrorism [have led to] the creation of a dedicated force of over 20,000 troops to guard nuclear facilities.” Furthermore, this force is not “immune to the problems associated with the units guarding regular military facilities,” which have frequently suffered attacks with “insider help.” In brief, the problem is real, and largely ignored, displaced by fevered fantasies concocted for other reasons.

Do Iranian leaders intend to develop nuclear weapons? Evidence is lacking today, but that they had such intentions in the past was asserted openly on the highest authority, which declared that Iran would develop nuclear weapons “certainly, and sooner than one thinks.” The father of Iran’s nuclear energy program and former head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization was confident that the leadership’s plan “was to build a nuclear bomb.” A CIA report also had “no doubt” that Iran would develop nuclear weapons if neighboring countries did (as they have).

All of this was under the Shah, the highest authority just quoted. That is, during the period when high U.S. officials – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kissinger and others -- were urging the Shah to proceed with nuclear programs, and pressuring universities to accommodate these efforts. My own university, MIT, arranged to admit Iranian students to the nuclear engineering program over the very strong objections of the student body, but with comparably strong faculty support.

Opponents of the nuclear deal charge that it did not go far enough to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Some supporters agree that there should be additional measures, holding that “the whole of the Middle East must rid itself of weapons of mass destruction.” The author of these words, Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Javad Zarif, adds that “Iran, in its national capacity and as current chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement, is prepared to work with the international community to achieve these goals.”

Minister Zarif was referring to the regular 5-year NPT review conference, which ended in failure in April when the U.S. once again blocked the efforts to move towards a WMD-free zone in the Middle East (joined this time by Canada and Britain), as Obama had in 2010.

A nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East is a straightforward way to address whatever threat Iran’s nuclear programs allegedly poses. And as these comments make clear, a great deal more is at stake in Washington’s continuing sabotage of the effort, protecting its Israeli client. This is not the only case when opportunities to end the alleged Iranian threat have been undermined by Washington, raising further questions about just what is actually at stake.

What then is the real threat of Iran that inspires such fear and fury? Recall the analysis of U.S. intelligence that Iran’s nuclear programs (with no effort to produce bombs, as far as intelligence can determine) are “a central part of its deterrent strategy.”

Who would be concerned by an Iranian deterrent? The answer is plain: the rogue states that rampage in the region. Far in the lead in this regard are the rejectionist triad. That is too obvious to review in the case of the U.S. and Israel. Saudi Arabia is joining the club with its invasion of Bahrain to suppress a reform movement there and now its murderous assault on Yemen, accelerating the humanitarian catastrophe there

For the United States, the characterization as a rogue state is familiar. Fifteen years ago, Samuel Huntington warned in Foreign Affairs that for much of the world the U.S. is “becoming the rogue superpower,” considered “the single greatest external threat to their societies.” His words were echoed shortly after by the president of the American Political Science Association, Robert Jervis, who observed that “In the eyes of much of the world, in fact, the prime rogue state today is the United States.” As we have seen, global opinion supports this judgment today by a substantial margin.

Furthermore, the mantle is worn with pride. That is the clear meaning of the insistence of the leadership and the political class, in media and commentary, that the U.S. reserves the right to resort to force if it determines, unilaterally, that Iran is violating some commitment. It is also a long-standing official stand of liberal Democrats, for example the Clinton Doctrine that the U.S. is entitled to resort to “unilateral use of military power” even for such purposes as to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources,” let alone alleged “security” or “humanitarian” concerns.

In his letter to Congress, cited earlier, Obama reiterated the doctrine that the U.S. will use force, unilaterally, as it chooses. And the doctrine is accepted with such unanimity that it elicited no comment. The same was true when Obama declares that the alternative to the nuclear agreement is war – meaning an attack by the U.S. or Israel. Who else contemplates such actions – in fact openly declares the intention to carry them out, if it chooses?

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/The-Nuclear-Deal-20150822-0003.html

 20 
 on: May 10, 2018, 06:00:02 PM 
Started by News - Last post by Dani37
No matter what is said about the strides that have been made regarding the treatment and value of women the actions within law and culture make liars of us. This problem seems insurmountable because the focus is on a symptom and not the actual illness which is White Supremacy. But the symptoms will persist and evolve because those who are affected are its biggest champions just like the Incels who call women sluts but hate those that won't submit to their advances.

It isn't a coincidence that they share the same language as the supermist or that they engage in 'slut shaping' and rape fantasy their frustration is with their inability to dominate what they have been told is their right to dominate. They don't simply want any kind of woman they want the thing they 'despise' they want a 'Stacy' that responds to them as if they were a 'Chad' with money and anything less simply won't do!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Copyright © 2001-2005 AfricaSpeaks.com and RastafariSpeaks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!