Picasso, Constellation drawings, 1924.
Don’t these look like plans for crop circles?
(via androphilia)
Meaning of the Strength Symbol
Native American Indians were a deeply spiritual people and they communicated their history, thoughts, ideas and dreams from generation to generation through Symbols and Signs such as the Strength symbol. Native American symbols were geometric portrayals of celestial bodies, natural phenomena and animal designs. Animals were drawn as symbols which were taken as spiritual guides and stood for the qualities and traits of the animal that the symbol represented. Native American bird and animal symbols and totems are believed to represent the physical form of a spirit helper and guide. The Bear symbol was important as it represented a protector and symbolized physical strength and leadership. Bears are strong, agile, and quick. The black bear and the Grizzly were native to North America and strongly associated with strength.
The description under the symbol doesn’t seem to explain what it means. Is this found in Native American symbology as well as Celtic?
Yeah me too
Just noticed this was posted 4 minutes before 4:20.
Coincidence?
(via imagineatoms)
My response to Lady Gaga’s appropriation of the Burqa
About fourteen years ago, the veiled Muslim woman had been cast in television commercials in the United States. She played a part, a supporting one, in the commercial for the Jeep Cherokee made by Chrysler in 1996 shot in Morocco. The veiled woman is seen smiling and admiring the Jeep – sending the message that “if he buys the Jeep … He may even win the admiration of the most inaccessible of women, the woman with the veil”. This gives the illusion to the reader that something that in unattainable is within grasp. Western exotica, like Playboy, use the image of a veiled woman to their advantage as well. Covering certain parts of a woman’s body, leaving the man’s imagination to wander.
When advertisements target American women, advertisement marketers depend on the stereotyping of Muslim women as oppressed and submissive. In 1989 Virginia Slims advertisement with a man pictured in a turban sitting along the sides of three women in headscarves. The turbaned man himself is a mistake; a turban was used primarily by the Sikh religion for their men. You can see the misconceptions that Westerners believe that all people of that region are assumed to don that headdress for their men as well. The caption reads: “The Sultan of Bundi Had Nothing Against Women. He Thought Everyone Should Own Two or Three.” Underneath the woman farthest from the man is an image of a cigarette pack of Virginia Slims, with the caption: “You’ve Come a Long Way Baby.” This method reassures American women consumers that, as western women, they would never be like the oppressed Muslim women pictured if they were to buy the cigarettes.
When Lady Gaga wears a sexualized, orientalist and racist version of what she calls a “burqa” and when she makes a song about having “burqa swag”, She’s actually not doing anyone a favor by wearing it, least of all, Muslim women who actually do wear the burqa. The burqa itself culturally varies in style among the Muslim world, but for Lady Gaga to reclaim something that isn’t a part of her culture OR religion, further hypersexualizes Muslim/Middle Eastern/North African women and their religious/cultural attire. A burqa is not a political statement that Lady Gaga can make.
In fact, it’s highly islamophobic, because she’s really commodifying the religious and cultural garb of Muslims, to further sensationalize stories to satiate the ongoing imperialist fascination with Muslim women’s lives. We are constantly put under the media’s eyes and scrutinized for making the choices to wear our religious garb and deemed as submissive and oppressed individuals while white women who try on a “hijab for a day” or appropriate religious garb, they are applauded for being “revolutionary and brave”. She’s actually making it harder on us by objectifying us even more.
amq:
Yes there is a very small minority who may be effectively forced to adorn such clothing, through ultra-conservative family pressures, but most muslims scholars agree that it is not obligatory on women at all. Talking from personal experience - I have a few aunts and second cousins who wear the garment - and you know what’s funny about it… the fact that their husbands discourage them from wearing it, but they choose to do so regardless. This is a cultural and personal choice. If she wanted to take off her burkha, she would. This is a personal choice, and the idea that behind every muslim women there is an oppressive man forcing her faith - is nothing but an Islamophobic myth. Muslim women can speak for themselves, they do not need your pity. Clothes-policing is totally contradictory to the principles of democracy, and if we really are a free society not steeped in Islamophobia, this wouldn’t even be a debate, it would be a personal decision - to legally force and harass a women to go against her own personal decision of choice, is totally fucking contradictory to the core principles of freedom and democracy and women’s rights.
Muslim women like me, my mother, my aunts, my sisters, my fellow Muslim women around the world are the only ones who can have “burqa swag” and we don’t need your self-righteous, white savior, orientalist, racist, islamophobic bullshit to save us because we can do it ourselves and own it.
So basically, Lady Gaga can fuck right off.
Maybe you could teach white culture what it means to choose to wear the hijab, for those of us who might be interested in learning what Islam has to offer the world in terms of life/spiritual principles. Would it be ok if a non-Muslim woman chose to wear one in observance of her agreement with some of these principles? What if she’s imitating Catholic nuns? What if she’s just a woman with a scarf on her head? I think our culture is in need of the concept of modesty, and I have a feeling Islam could provide us an illustration while helping us to remember the same concept in our other cultures. “Hijab is a choice” ought to be a public education campaign.
(via androphilia)
Protesting Yoga in Schools, But Welcoming Bible Study
When is touching your toes just touching your toes, and when is it an effort to indoctrinate small children in Hinduism?
That is the question that emerged from reporting in the New York Times, Fox News, and the Guardian on the threat of a lawsuit by a group of public school parents in Encinitas, California over a yoga class in a public elementary school.
But the most compelling aspect of the controversy has nothing to do with the religious nature of yoga, or with the fears of parents. Rather, the case raises serious questions about the separation of church and school, and about the many religiously-driven programs that are already active in public education, even in Encinitas. As it turns out, there is so much religion in public education today that the fuss over yoga is like worrying about a stain on your blouse when your trousers are covered in mud.
There are two important ways to think about the issue of yoga—or other potentially religiously-inspired content in public schools. The first test has to do with the content of the program; the second has to do with the connection of the sponsoring organization to the curriculum being presented.
Mary Eady, one of the parents organizing against Encinitas’ yoga program, described to a Timesreporter what she sees as religious content: “They’re teaching children how to meditate, how to look for peace and for comfort… It’s meant to shape the way they regulate their emotions.” She characterized the “Sun Salutation,” a basic series of yoga poses in which the student stretches his or her hands to the ceiling, as “a movement sequence that worships the sun god Surya,” and claimed that “yoga, including its physical practice, is very religious indeed.” Her legal representative, Dean Broyles, chief counsel for the Escondido-based National Center for Policy and Law (NCPL), is even more adamant, asserting that the Sun Salutation constitutes sun-worship.
So flipping lame and hypocritical. Really? Learning how to control your emotions without pharmaceuticals is a bad thing?








