saxifraga-x-urbium

beben-eleben:

Jim Dingilian proves that a creative and skillful artist can create works of art with just about anything. By coating the interior of empty glass bottles with black smoke and then carefully brushing it away with tools mounted on dowels, he creates detailed and beautiful but dark works of smoke art that are dripping with a sense of suburban decay (via Bored Panda).

saxifraga-x-urbium
stirringwind:

cookingwithroxy:

healterskeltergirl:

this-is-cthulhu-privilege:

Friendly reminder that bad social justice is a vicious cancer on basic humanity.

As a Mexican, the woman answering is in the right. She is more than welcome to celebrate Dia de los Muertos, because for her, it’s a comforting thing. It’s not cultural appropriation if you understand the customs, if you’re doing it as, in the above story, a way to cope and to feel close to your lost family. It’s perfectly okay, because she understands why it’s celebrated.
I don’t know, it’s just upsetting when people use it as another way of celebrating Halloween, when it isn’t at all. It’s a day for remembering loved ones who have passed on, and to celebrate their life, and to feel them with you.

The issue really is that there are people, who from what I’ve often seen are not actually part of the culture they’re trying to ‘defend’, who declare that… well, that being White is enough to make you horrible for participating in traditions that are not European in origin.

YES! And the irony is that if the anon knew ANYTHING about history- they’d know the “Day of the Dead” itself is a holiday that is born from the syncretic fusion of multiple cultures- Spanish and Mesoamerican. From what I learned, the Aztecs had a reverence for death, an emphasis on beginnings and ends, and often depicted it quite a lot in their religious images, rituals etc. The modern holiday itself has its roots in an ancient Aztec celebration that honored deceased ancestors, which was dedicated to the goddess of the underworld, Mictecacihuatl, who was called “Lady Death”(or something to that effect). This corresponds to how one popular symbol of Day of the Dead isthe feminine figure of La Catrina. Also, I was told that many of the other Mesoamericans, like the Maya, featured the skull symbol very prominently in their culture. And that’s clearly reflected in the modern holiday. (I do apologise if i’ve made any mistakes but this is what I know to be accurate)
So, even though most Mexicans today are Catholic, and the holiday now incorporates Catholic rituals and iconography, my point is that this holiday ITSELF is a fusion that borrowed from multiple cultures. A lot of modern Mexicans are mestizo- with both Spanish and Mesoamerican ancestors. Much of modern Mexican culture itself is a syncretic fusion of Mesoamerican and Spanish. And the kind of standards advocated by some people seem to suggest nothing less that a rigid segregation of cultures is acceptable. So, if you want to be extremely narrow-minded, this holiday itself is “problematic” because it’s arguably born from “cultural appropriation”! 
This lady was celebrating it to feel close to her beloved lost daughter and friend, and that’s exactly the meaning of the holiday. So what if she’s not Mexican? A Mexican taught her the meanings and rituals and invited her to do so. She hasn’t distorted the holiday and is celebrating it with a respectful understanding of its significance. 

stirringwind:

cookingwithroxy:

healterskeltergirl:

this-is-cthulhu-privilege:

Friendly reminder that bad social justice is a vicious cancer on basic humanity.

As a Mexican, the woman answering is in the right. She is more than welcome to celebrate Dia de los Muertos, because for her, it’s a comforting thing. It’s not cultural appropriation if you understand the customs, if you’re doing it as, in the above story, a way to cope and to feel close to your lost family. It’s perfectly okay, because she understands why it’s celebrated.

I don’t know, it’s just upsetting when people use it as another way of celebrating Halloween, when it isn’t at all. It’s a day for remembering loved ones who have passed on, and to celebrate their life, and to feel them with you.

The issue really is that there are people, who from what I’ve often seen are not actually part of the culture they’re trying to ‘defend’, who declare that… well, that being White is enough to make you horrible for participating in traditions that are not European in origin.

YES! And the irony is that if the anon knew ANYTHING about history- they’d know the “Day of the Dead” itself is a holiday that is born from the syncretic fusion of multiple cultures- Spanish and Mesoamerican. From what I learned, the Aztecs had a reverence for death, an emphasis on beginnings and ends, and often depicted it quite a lot in their religious images, rituals etc. The modern holiday itself has its roots in an ancient Aztec celebration that honored deceased ancestors, which was dedicated to the goddess of the underworld, Mictecacihuatl, who was called “Lady Death(or something to that effect). This corresponds to how one popular symbol of Day of the Dead isthe feminine figure of La Catrina. Also, I was told that many of the other Mesoamericans, like the Maya, featured the skull symbol very prominently in their culture. And that’s clearly reflected in the modern holiday. (I do apologise if i’ve made any mistakes but this is what I know to be accurate)

So, even though most Mexicans today are Catholic, and the holiday now incorporates Catholic rituals and iconography, my point is that this holiday ITSELF is a fusion that borrowed from multiple cultures. A lot of modern Mexicans are mestizo- with both Spanish and Mesoamerican ancestors. Much of modern Mexican culture itself is a syncretic fusion of Mesoamerican and Spanish. And the kind of standards advocated by some people seem to suggest nothing less that a rigid segregation of cultures is acceptable. So, if you want to be extremely narrow-minded, this holiday itself is “problematic” because it’s arguably born from “cultural appropriation”! 

This lady was celebrating it to feel close to her beloved lost daughter and friend, and that’s exactly the meaning of the holiday. So what if she’s not Mexican? A Mexican taught her the meanings and rituals and invited her to do so. She hasn’t distorted the holiday and is celebrating it with a respectful understanding of its significance. 

saxifraga-x-urbium
If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also
Matt 5:39

This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.   

(via thefullnessofthefaith)

THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you. 

(via guardianrock)

I can attest to the original poster’s comments. A few years back I took an intensive seminar on faith-based progressive activism, and we spent an entire unit discussing how many of Jesus’ instructions and stories were performative protests designed to shed light on and ridicule the oppressions of that time period as a way to emphasize the absurdity of the social hierarchy and give people the will and motivation to make changes for a more free and equal society.

For example, the next verse (Matthew 5:40) states “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” In that time period, men traditionally wore a shirt and a coat-like garment as their daily wear. To sue someone for their shirt was to put them in their place - suing was generally only performed to take care of outstanding debts, and to be sued for one’s shirt meant that the person was so destitute the only valuable thing they could repay with was their own clothing. However, many cultures at that time (including Hebrew peoples) had prohibitions bordering on taboo against public nudity, so for a sued man to surrender both his shirt and his coat was to turn the system on its head and symbolically state, in a very public forum, that “I have no money with which to repay this person, but they are so insistent on taking advantage of my poverty that I am leaving this hearing buck-ass naked. His greed is the cause of a shameful public spectacle.”

All of a sudden an action of power (suing someone for their shirt) becomes a powerful symbol of subversion and mockery, as the suing patron either accepts the coat (and therefore full responsibility as the cause of the other man’s shameful display) or desperately chases the protester around trying to return his clothes to him, making a fool of himself in front of his peers and the entire gathered community.

Additionally, the next verse (Matthew 5:41; “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”) was a big middle finger to the Romans who had taken over Judea and were not seen as legitimate authority by the majority of the population there. Roman law stated that a centurion on the march could require a Jew (and possibly other civilians as well, although I don’t remember explicitly) to carry his pack at any time and for any reason for one mile along the road (and because of the importance of the Roman highway system in maintaining rule over the expansive empire, the roads tended to be very well ordered and marked), however hecould not require any service beyond the next mile marker. For a Jewish civilian to carry a centurion’s pack for an entire second mile was a way to subvert the authority of the occupying forces. If the civilian wouldn’t give the pack back at the end of the first mile, the centurion would either have to forcibly take it back or report the civilian to his commanding officer (both of which would result in discipline being taken against the soldier for breaking Roman law) or wait until the civilian volunteered to return the pack, giving the Judean native implicit power over the occupying Roman and completely subverting the power structure of the Empire. Can you imagine how demoralizing that must have been for the highly ordered Roman armies that patrolled the region?

Jesus was a pacifist, but his teachings were in no way passive. There’s a reason he was practically considered a terrorist by the reigning powers, and it wasn’t because he healed the sick and fed the hungry.

(via central-avenue)

Devout or athiest, I don’t know how you read these texts without historical context. If you believe these are the written history of God’s people, wouldn’t you want that context all the more?

(via kawaiiabetic)