changing identity

So changing the identity has been on my mind ever since Annie came out. People were getting upset that Annie wasn't played by a red head, but instead by a black girl, and now people are upset that the classic Ghostbusters are a group of women now instead of a group of men.

For me, the reason why I'm fine with changing the identities of the characters in these stories, is because (to my own knowledge anyway) their race and gender aren't really part of the story.

I think that if you create a character, and you make them a disabled Chinese male for a reason, as in that's a core part of the story, then it shouldn't be changed. If you're making a remake of a story with this Chinese man in it, then you should cast a Chinese man to play that role. Or, if you are writing a story or telling a story that is about a dark skinned African women, whose story is about how she succeeded and navigated through life with her dark skin, the women who is cast should also have dark skin and hair like hers.

However, if her "blackness" isn't an essential part of the story, then I don't see any reason as to why it can't be changed.

Example. If all the characters in John Tucker Must Die, or Mean Girls, were suddenly a mixture of Malaysians and Chicanos, for me, that wouldn't be an issue. The stories in those films don't rely on the "whiteness" of the characters. The characters "whiteness" aren't part of the story, don't add to the story or do anything for the story, so changing up the race, gender, sexuality or whatever, of those characters doesn't make much of a difference. All you'd have to do is change up the title or the storyline a little.

I also understand that a lot of the time though, characters who are POC, disabled, queer, of a lower class, etc, that oppressed part of them is usually a major factor to the story because that's how the world sees them and navigating with that is what makes their story distinct.

I've been seeing that a lot of people are upset that you can't change a black character to a white character and stuff like that. Well, I think in some cases you can, but it's not great for diversity and representation. Take Storm in X-Men, is her being black necessary? Maybe? It helps the little anecdote she tells about saving her village by bringing rain, but she could've been a little white English girl who helped with the growing season in the Hamlet she lived in. Taking away her blackness would mean lack of representation which is awful, but then you could also make her Indian ... but I do think it's important to ask the question as to why you want to change the characters from black to white, or Indian to white, or gay to straight. Is it because the person who auditioned who was the best happened to be a conventionally beautiful white girl, or is it because you're racist. I think for Ghostbusters, they probably thought how cool it would be to make a remake, but with girls. And that's it.

I feel that another reason why people get upset when a POC/Non Binary/Queer, etc gets changed into a hetero, cis gendered, white person, is because a lot of the time, these characters are changed because making them more white, straight etc, is seen as "better," then them just being a black, non femme, trans woman.

So basically, I just think that when the marginalised part of a characters identity isn't important to the story then I feel that there's nothing wrong with changing it (even though representation is important, and a lot of the times it is a major part of the story, but sometimes it isn't! Not every oppressed person is living a politically fired life!). If it is important, then don't change it and find someone to cast, who looks, or is like them.

overthrow the government

So I'm basically kind of tired of seeing black bodies and black people getting killed for the simple reason that is because they're black. But I'm also really tired of only seeing protests, hashtags and tumblr posts too. Now I'm not bashing social media activism, because without it I wouldn't be as conscious as I am today. However, I feel that that is all that we do.

We just kind of sit back and write this long post on systemic racism, then go to bed. There is obviously nothing wrong with that, but it's so obvious that that isn't really working alone. We are still preaching on twitter, and black people are still getting killed. Us young people are making all of these magazines and cool platforms for other people like us, but police brutality hasn't stopped. And I'm not saying that all of this social stuff doesn't matter because it does, but doing it alone isn't enough.

Look, Mussolini didn't get into power purely through his newspaper, he became the prime minister, he had a squad of people who would fight to get what he wanted.

African Americans didn't get the right to vote through marches and speeches alone. The people in power, the people who create the laws and are part of the system, co-operated with MLK and essentially changed things.

We are waiting, but they're not going to stop, because why would they?

I feel that the only real way for change, is if the people in power start working with us. Police officers start criticising their own, judges start doing their jobs properly, congress suddenly becomes enlightened. Or, we overthrow the bloody government, because at least that means we can start all over again. Or, we get into power ourselves and change things from there. They can't do anything, if we're, in charge. If I were the judge of the Brock case, he wouldn't have been let off so easily. If we are the heads, the CEOs, the bosses, the chiefs, whatever. If we are in charge, then we can change things from then on. 

(Beyonce must have been in complete creative control, or her team is completely on board with her vision because the amount of various black girls in Lemonade ... I can't see someone who isn't in charge doing that.)

I'm not trying to judge, because I am honestly criticising myself, because what am I doing? However I do feel that I can speak on this.

I also feel that this problem also comes, because we're too afraid, and quite rightly so to be honest. I don't feel like putting my life in danger. I'm comfortable, and that's the problem. We're not angry enough, we're not uncomfortable enough. To be honest, in the town where I live, I'm not afraid of getting hurt by the police. I have a macbook, a wall to wall wardrobe, I can afford holidays, I'm not in poverty because of my race, I'm pretty well off. I feel that because a lot of this doesn't affect us directly (even though it could), we're not ready to do anything. In the 1930s, every black person was affected. Everyone had it hard, some harder than others, but everyone had is HARD. Now, we don't, and we'd rather not do anything until something big happens.

I also think that we are too caught up in making changes online, and not in "real life." Being artists, and changing things through our paintings and songs, and not trying to get into government.

Now I'm personally an artist, and I am going to do my part through art, but the reason why I'm saying this, is because I feel that being an "artist" is kind of a trend at the moment. I may be wrong, but this is how I am seeing everything. People who aren't really passionate about art, are being "artists" because they feel that it's cool, but they'd much rather be writing a book on the biological cousins of iguanas, or training to become a police officer or an attorney. I don't know.

I just feel that we are doing the same thing over and over again, and nothing is working, yet we keep on doing it anyway. We're focused too much on one thing and not on other aspects, and we're just generally not ready.

P.S: I'm not bashing anyone, I just feel that we could all do better.

P.P.S: I am criticisng myself as much as others, and I also feel like I'm just talking because I don't think I've come up with a solution, other than "become the boss" (I don't even know if I even made that point until now).

P.P.P.S: I am open to correction and criticism

P.P.P.P.S: I apologise for making no sense

P.P.P.P.P.S: I got the moth and set it free.

Racism and the questions surrounding it

Hello everyone! This post was inspired by reading the comments on the Buzzfeed videos on racism. I think that a lot of what Buzzfeed tries to say is quite good, however there is a lot of confusion surrounding it and I was hoping to clear some of it up. If you guys have any more thoughts, or if I got something wrong, please put it down in the comments below! I want to stay educated. 

NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACIST

I know. I know, I know, I know that not all white people are "racist" (as in KKK, lynching racist). However, you guys have a privilege. That doesn't make you a bad person, but you need to understand, that you have a privilege in just being white and therefore, because you are not a POC, you are inclined to do racist things. Not consciously, but you will.

It's a bit like me saying that not all straight people are homophobic. I am straight, and I know that I am not Westboro Church homophobic, but because I am straight, I am inclined to do, or say internalised homophobic things. So in that sense, yes I am homophobic and I can accept that.

So what I'm trying to say, is that when POC direct things at "white people," it's because it is all white people really. It's difficult to embrace the fact that you are inherently a little bit racist just because your white, in the same why you are inherently a little bit homophobic because you're straight. That doesn't make you a bad person though, and that doesn't mean that we all hate you and that we are attacking you. We are pointing something out, and the quicker you accept that, the quicker we can work, to create a system, where that isn't the case.

ALL LIVES MATTER

Okay, so all lives matter. Of course all lives matter, but the thing is, some groups of people, are finding it harder to live than others. When people say "black lives matter" they are essentially saying, that at the moment black people are struggling at the moment. Right now they need more support than another group of people. That doesn't mean that the other groups of people are insignificant, it's just that the group that needs more help, needs to be focused on at the point in time.

Here is an analogy that I have taken from my own life.

I have two siblings, so there are three of us in total. Myself and my brother kind of fit well into the school system. Obviously we struggle a bit, here and there but we can cope. I'm quite well rounded, I am okay with more academic subjects, but I'm also good at creative things. So is my brother. My sister on the other hand finds this stuff difficult. She doesn't fit, therefore she needs more attention. She's struggling and she needs to be the focus out of the three of us. It kind of hurts a little, when one sibling gets more attention than the other, but then you realise, that at that point in time, you don't need as much help as them. Myself and my brother work to support my sister, so she doesn't find school so difficult anymore, and once she's got a rhythm, the attention will be equal again. My brother and I aren't loved less, or seen as insignificant, it's just that at that point in time, my sister needs more help.

Imagine my sister represents black people, I represent white people and my brother represents Native Americans. 

Can you see it now? Please say you can.

ACCEPTING WHITE PRIVILIGE

White privilege is a thing.

I think it's a really hard thing to accept too. The idea, that because you were born right, you are born into a privilege. 

The thing is, if you don't accept this, then you hurt other POC, because you refusing to accept it, means that there are things that you will refuse to change which hurt POC, just because you don't see it.

For me, white privilege is:

• the fact that white people don't have to worry about not finding their colour in a drugstore. 

• They don't have to worry about a person not knowing how to do their own hair in a salon. 

• White privilege is when your race is represented diversely in the media

• White privilege is when one member of your race is maniac, there isn't a massive assumption that your whole race is like that (thinking of post 9/11)

• White privilege is when an internal terrorist group isn't seen as a terrorist group (thinking of the KKK)

• White privilege is not having to worry about your skin colour or your hair contributing on how people perceive you.

Do you kind of see it now? How for many of these things, you don't have to think about it at all, because all of this is catered to you already? But it is an issue. It isn't right, that a whole category of hair, isn't taught in beauty school (3/4). It isn't right that the whole muslim community get judged so harshly, for a terrorist attack, yet we don't even categorise the KKK as a "terrorist group." I mean, I've never heard it been called that before by any history teacher or book anyway. 

So please accept that there is white privilege. It does exist. You're not evil for having it because you can't control what you're born as and with. Just acknowledge that it's there.

WHAT I MEAN WHEN I SAY THERE ISN'T ENOUGH DIVERSITY IN THE MEDIA

So when I say that there isn't enough diversity of POC in the media, this is what I mean.

• You don't see a black girl in mainstream media, who is interested in rock and science fiction, and is shy.

• You don't see a black guy, in mainstream media, who is interested in rock and science fiction, and is shy.

• You don't see Chinese guys who are absolute hippies.

• You don't see basic Indian or Arab girls.

• How many Korean lesbians do you see?

All of these people exist, yet you don't see it in the media. You do see though, the white:

• The gay guy

• Drug dealer

• Politicin

• Lesbian

• Basic girl

• Smart girl

• Fat girl (we can talk about the lack of representation of fat people in another post but ...)

• Rockstar

• Folk singer (Ray Charles liked folk and country, so um)

• Shy girl

• Loud girl

• Alternative guy

• Homeless

And so many more. How many times do you see these people as POC? You don't, and this is what I mean. 

I know many people say, that "why don't you create characters with POC like this?" And it's true, we should. However, do you know how difficult it is for POC to break into the entertainment industry, and make it big enough for their work to be shown on a mainstream platform, so that when they include these non stereotypical characters, it reaches enough people so that it can start to change their mindset on POC? Whilst POC are trying to make it, why can't the white writers, producers, directors, etc, try and consciously create POC characters who are the protagonists, who are not stereotypical, who represent the diverse characters in their community? 

(This just links back to white privilege.)

I TRY NOT TO SEE COLOUR/I DON'T SEE COLOUR

So when people say that, I feel that people are trying to say, that they don't see me as a "black person" but as a person. In the sense that, they are not going to treat me differently because I am black, but they will treat me as a person. They don't see, that colour.

I get that, and that's nice.

However, you have to see colour.

I can't be friends with someone, who doesn't acknowledge my colour. Why? Because my colour is such a big part of me, and it totally shapes who I am as a person. A lot of my anxieties come from being a black girl, in a Western society. If you want to be my friend, you need to understand, that my colour, my blackness, plays a large part in my life and if you don't see that, you won't be able to connect with me on a deeper and emotional level. You won't be able to understand the struggle myself and other POC feel, because you chose not to see it.

WHITE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN OPPRESSED BEFORE

Okay, I'm going to be plain and simple here.

White people have definitely been oppressed before, definitely. I'm not going to deny that. But ... it wasn't because they were white.

Therefore, it wasn't racism.

The white American's who oppressed the white Irish were being xenophobic, not racist. Plus, they got to climb up the social ladder, because they were white anyway.

xenophobic

zɛnəˈfəʊbɪk/Submit

adjective

having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries.

Right, so the second part of this post, is going to be me talking about another issue which I have seen popping up. People are getting mad about the definition of racism changing (I mean, are you also upset about the definition of marriage being changed or ...). So I wanted to try and show everyone, who the "new" definition and the "old" definition are basically the same thing, it's just that the "new"n definition is more sophisticated, I guess. 

OLD

• Racism is a product of the complex interaction in a given society of a race-based worldview with prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices. - Wikipedia

• racism |ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m|

noun [ mass noun ]

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. theories of racism.

• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior: a programme to combat racism. - Oxford dictionary

• Racism is treating someone unfairly simply because they belong to a different race or culture. It is illegal to treat people differently because of their race and no one has the right to make you feel bad or abuse you.  - Childline

NEW

Institutional racism or systemic racism describes forms of racism which are structured into political and social institutions. It occurs when organisations, institutions or governments discriminate, either deliberately or indirectly, against certain groups of people to limit their rights.

BREAKDOWN

I saw this comment on Youtube which I quite liked:

"Racism/Racist: Racism describes a system of disadvantage based of race. “Certain People” can’t be racist because they don’t benefit from this specific system we call racism. AKA they don’t have racial privilege. Racism pre supposes the ability to control a significant segment of a population economically, politically and social by imposing law, covenant and restrictions on their lives. Yes all people can be bigoted and or prejudice but “certain people” cant be racist due to the fact that they are oppressed and do not have supremacy over “certain groups of people.” Basically any oppressed people can’t be racist. 

Prejudice: Not liking a person or group without a good reason. A preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Yes everyone is able to be prejudice and not like a certain group or race of people. It’s a terrible thing in general but it’s not the same as racist. People who are not educated in these type of things or just don’t care won’t know the difference between the two. Power/Supremacy + Prejudice = Racist. Oppressed + Prejudice = Prejudice."

So lets breakdown the issue we have: POC can't be racist towards white people.

So the "traditional" definition of racism includes white people. It tells us that white people can also experience racism. 

However, if racism is also systemic, and it is all to do with the idea that a certain race has racial privilege over other races, then the "racism," which white people experience turns into racial discrimination and prejudice, and not racism.

How is the system racist?

• Well black people were not allowed to buy housing in a certain neighbourhood

• Less money is put into black schools than into white schools

• (this isn't to do with race, but it's supports the idea) How gay marriage was only legalised in 2015 in America.

• Why are Hispanic youths targeted?

• If black people have less money being put into their schools, that means that they have a poorer education, due to the quality of teaching. This means it is harder for them to get into professions and universities because their grades aren't the best. 

• How many East Asian politicians do you see (if they're so smart, then why aren't they up there with you?)?

• Why aren't mainstream beauty schools not being taught about black hair?

And many more which involve all of the POC and not just black people.

________________________________________________________________________________

So I hope that this kind of cleared up some things? I don't know, I just really felt that I needed to say something about this, because there are so many misconceptions that people have. I know that I may not be entirely right, and if I'm not please point me out because I want to make this as accurate as possible. If you have any more examples, then tell me, so I can add them to my lists! Okay guys, I hope you enjoyed this!

LINKS

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-halstead/white-bubble-of-colorblindness_b_9293086.html
• https://www.raceforward.org/videos/systemic-racism

abortion and my thoughts on it

So this post isn't really a post to try and persuade anyone to change their minds on abortion. This is is just a post about me talking about the open debate, and a couple of things which kind of irritate me and just my thoughts on it.

So my response to the idea, that you could be aborting the 21st century superman, is that somebody else could be superman instead. Somebody else will figure out a cure for cancer. If Rosa Parks had been aborted, then the people within the civil rights movement, would have just chosen another light skinned activist to emulate what Ida B Wells did before. If Martin Luther King had been aborted, somebody else would have led the movement. If Charles Darwin had been aborted, somebody else would have come up with the theory of Evolution. If all of these people had been aborted, somebody else would have done it! They are not the one and onlys. It may take more time, but that doesn't mean that it won't happen. So that is my response to that.





Q: How would you feel if you were aborted?
A: I wouldn't care.

Okay, so I understand that the sanctity of life is important (tO AN eXTENT), however I feel that we tend to value life so much, that we don't see that different lifes, have different values? In the nicest way possible, I think that a woman is more valuable than a foetus, just because of the fact that she can think and feel and a foetus can't.

A foetus doesn't have the capacity to care about anything and to want or think about anything. It doesn't have any preferences, so why are we putting it above a person who does, have preferences?

*I do believe that everyone should be treated fairly and equally and have a chance at living, but when you are trying to decide who should be put above someone else, maybe choose the party that actually cares, rather than the one who doesn't care and could possibly die due to a natural abortion (a miscarriage)


I am pro choice. I believe that a woman should be able to decide what she wants to do with her body, and I don't think that a nonthinking foetus should be able to take charge of it.

I think that if you see the foetus as an equal to the mother, than you are creating a very destructive situation. You can't compare something that's living and that has feelings and preferences to something that doesn't. Once again, I was to emphasise the fact that I don't think you should be aborting foetus's as practical jokes, but when it comes down to what the woman wants and how the potential child will affect her future, I think the woman should be able to decide.

Being pro choice is also NOT the same as being pro abortion. I just believe that a woman should decide whether she wants to terminate a pregnancy or not. You can be pro choice and still be "against" abortion. You can personally not believe in abortion, because you believe that it would be taking a life. However, you can also believe that you should have the option to choose that, and that other woman who may not think the same way as you do, should have the option to have an abortion if they want one.

So lets have some free legal abortion clinics please and thank you.

is nudity normal?

For quite a long time, I've been battling with myself and the idea of nudity, and whether it was something that was intrinsically bad or not. I have decided that it isn't.

When I started to discover my "style" and express myself through what I wore, I began to realise that I was (and still am) drawn to shorter, sheer, flowy kind of things. Obviously not everything I wear will show off my bra or whatever, but I do like that kind of stuff, and it kind of started to eat me up inside that I do like that stuff.

I personally think, that I've been feeling bad about it, because of my own Christian upbringing. I feel that Christian beliefs have been embedded in the system and also been taught to our parents, us, our children ... EVERYONE. All of these beliefs have been what all of these "social rules" have been based on, and the idea that nudity, less clothes = bad, no self respect isn't an exception. A lot of the things that I've experienced have told me that wearing these shorter, sheerer kind of clothes, is bad. I don't hate my family and the people around me, but I do feel that they have really put unnecessary stress on me. 

This conflict with how I felt and what I was being told made me question this whole "issue." Is nudity ACTUALLY, bad? Is there anything morally wrong with it? No. I don't think there is. Wearing less clothes isn't going to kill someone. Wearing less clothes also doesn't mean that I have less self worth and self respect than a girl who wears more clothes than me. That is just a lie that we're told, so that women can't express their sexuality through clothing freely. It's important to really question all the things we're told are "bad" or that we can't do, and really ask ourselves if it's true, or not.

Another thing that I've had an issue with, is the fact that women's bodies are sexualised way, too much. We tend to sexualise women's bodies so much, that girls in schools are not allowed to show their shoulders, or wear short shorts on extremely hot days, because they'll be a "distraction" (meaning you've just sexualised a teenage girl's shoulder and legs. Gross). Why do we do this? Why do we always associate women's bodies with sex? Why can't a woman be wearing a mini skirt and a bralette because she felt good in that outfit and nothing else? Why do we always assume that a woman is wearing smaller clothes for men? Why does she always have to be sexual? And so what, if she does, want to be sexual? She can be if she wants to be, but it most certainly isn't for you (men).

So yeah. I've really been battling with this for quite a while. I've decided that I'm going to wear whatever I want though, because I know why I wear the things I wear and I don't need to explain it to anyone. I may just want to wear a bralette, denim jacket and shorts. It doesn't mean I don't have any self worth, or self respect. I freaking love myself and what I wear, doesn't change that.

What are your thoughts on nudity, smaller clothes, etc guys? Do you think it's acceptable or not? Why? Any experiences? Similar or completely different? I'd love to know!

riot grrrl meet coven meets 90s teen witch

So I had NO idea what to call this post, so I basically split the tags and put half of them in the title, and left the other half where they're supposed to be.

Anyway, I've recently really gotten into this kind of "teen witch," coven, riot grrrl (quite problematic but the initial idea was freaking awesome), feminist, punk, diy kind of aesthetic? But still keeping it girly? I dunno, but I've been wearing more chokers and rings, and I've suddenly found maxi dresses and midi skirts incredibly appealing.

Here are a collection of images, music, films and other things that have made me welcome this kind of "look" into my already very full, bank of aesthetics.

I'm very into Riot Grrrl, even though it is problematic. The idea behind it though, and it's aesthetic and all of that, is something that I would really like to see happening again today, but even better and more inclusive of WOC, trans women, trans WOC and so on. There are many "movements" coming up that are very focused on art and POC too though, however I don't think they're really movements though. 

What I mean, is that suddenly, I've seen this sudden appearance of online magazines, promoting POC, WOC, and our art, since it is often suppressed. Things like the "arthoecollective." Reclaiming the word "hoe" like many of the girls reclaimed the word "slut" during the 90s when Riot Grrrl was really taking storm and making the punk scene something that girls could be safe and be part of too.

The kind of teen witch obsession came about earlier this year, probably around early spring, when I first watched American Horror Story: Coven. I ADORED all the looks from that series, but I never really pursued it. My love came back again in the summer when I watched The Craft, and I only just recently started to try and create outfits around that whole look, that I'm comfortable with. Everything about it just makes me feel so edgy and cool and I feel really good when I imagine myself wearing those types of clothes. I also think that they're very winteresque looks and something that would reflect the British winter as well.

a collage i made

Incorporating that DIY part of the Riot Grrrl culture, I have come up with these looks thaat I'm super excited to wear, and try and get away with wearing during school, even though the dress code is "smart," which equates to suits. I'll sneak it in somehow. 

What are your thoughts on Riot Grrrl and this whole witchy style of dressing?

Melody x