13th Apr 2014

The conversation about #CancelColbert was stupid, but probably not for the reasons you thought it was.

letsreadsomeinternet:

Look, I didn’t join in #CancelColbert. I thought the original tweet from the Colbert show was disgusting, discouraging, and disappointing, but I came to the conclusion that I didn’t believe Colbert’s show should be cancelled, so I refrained from participating in…

6th Apr 2014

policymic:

Cleveland baseball fans stand against racism by #DeChiefing their gear

In the past few months, debate surrounding the use of racial caricatures as pro sports mascots has reached a fever pitch. Just ask the Washington Redskins, who’ve endured significant backlash for both their refusal to change their name and their half-assed attempts to placate their critics.

But a few miles west, fans of the MLB’s Cleveland Indians are taking a stand. In a motion of solidarity, a small but growing number have been “de-Chiefing” their paraphernalia by removing the offensive “Chief Wahoo” mascot from caps and jerseys that bear its likeness.

Read moreFollow policymic

22nd Mar 2014
fennekin-the-fox:

classicladiesofcolor:

Sacheen Littlefeather holds up a statement that she read on behalf of Marlon Brando at the Academy Awards ceremony held on March 27, 1973. [LA Times]

“She represented Brando and his boycott of the Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal as Don Vito Corleone in The Godfather (1972), as a way to protest the ongoing siege at Wounded Knee andHollywood's and television's misrepresentation of American Indians. Brando had written a 15-page speech for Littlefeather to give at the ceremony, but when the producer met her backstage he threatened to physically remove her or have her arrested if she spoke on stage for more than 60 seconds.[5] Her on-stage comments were therefore improvised. She then went backstage and read the entire speech to the press. In his autobiography My Word Is My Bond, Roger Moore (who presented the award) claims he took the Oscar home with him and kept it in his possession until it was collected by an armed guard sent by the Academy.
The incident provoked the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to rule out future proxy acceptance of the Academy Awards” (source)
Let’s not forget that part. Happy Women’s History Month, guys.

fennekin-the-fox:

classicladiesofcolor:

Sacheen Littlefeather holds up a statement that she read on behalf of Marlon Brando at the Academy Awards ceremony held on March 27, 1973. [LA Times]

She represented Brando and his boycott of the Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal as Don Vito Corleone in The Godfather (1972), as a way to protest the ongoing siege at Wounded Knee andHollywood's and television's misrepresentation of American Indians. Brando had written a 15-page speech for Littlefeather to give at the ceremony, but when the producer met her backstage he threatened to physically remove her or have her arrested if she spoke on stage for more than 60 seconds.[5] Her on-stage comments were therefore improvised. She then went backstage and read the entire speech to the press. In his autobiography My Word Is My Bond, Roger Moore (who presented the award) claims he took the Oscar home with him and kept it in his possession until it was collected by an armed guard sent by the Academy.

The incident provoked the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to rule out future proxy acceptance of the Academy Awards” (source)

Let’s not forget that part. Happy Women’s History Month, guys.

12th Mar 2014

cakeandrevolution:

cakeandrevolution:

If you’re not upset about Katniss, Tonto, or Kahn being played by white people, but you are upset about Annie being played by a black girl, you’re probably racist.

And by probably I mean definitely.

hahaha i put that in queue days ago and today we can add thinking it’s okay to cast rooney mara as TIGER LILY WTAFFFFF

12th Mar 2014

cakeandrevolution:

cakeandrevolution:

If you’re not upset about Katniss, Tonto, or Kahn being played by white people, but you are upset about Annie being played by a black girl, you’re probably racist.

And by probably I mean definitely.

9th Feb 2014

"If a white man wants to lynch me, that’s his problem. If he’s got the power to lynch me, that’s my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it’s a question of power."

3rdeyechicago:

- Stokely Carmichael

1st Feb 2014

thirddeadlysin:

ChangeTheMascot.org:

Watch the #BigGame commercial the NFL would never air. Get involved by contacting the Washington Professional Football Team, the NFL and the Washington Post:

DC Team

@redskins
Facebook.com/redskins
http://www.redskins.com/footer/contac…

Roger Goodell & NFL 

@NFL 
@NFLcommish
https://www.facebook.com/NFL 

Washington Post

DC’s hometown paper is still using the R-word in its coverage of the team.

@WashingtonPost
@PostSports 
https://www.facebook.com/washingtonpost 

Thank you to all of the filmmakers who donated their footage.

31st Jan 2014

ChangeTheMascot.org:

Watch the #BigGame commercial the NFL would never air. Get involved by contacting the Washington Professional Football Team, the NFL and the Washington Post:

DC Team

@redskins
Facebook.com/redskins
http://www.redskins.com/footer/contac…

Roger Goodell & NFL 

@NFL 
@NFLcommish
https://www.facebook.com/NFL 

Washington Post

DC’s hometown paper is still using the R-word in its coverage of the team.

@WashingtonPost
@PostSports 
https://www.facebook.com/washingtonpost 

Thank you to all of the filmmakers who donated their footage.

23rd Jan 2014

odinsblog:

A few things about the whole Richard Sherman kerfuffle: 

1) He and Michael Crabtree have had an ongoing beef going back at least to last summer

2) Literally less than 20 - 30min before the post game interview, Sherman and Crabtree had just had an on field altercation, and according to Sherman, another one minutes after the game

3) Also, literally less than 10min before the interview, Sherman had just made the winning deflection (in a close game) that ensured his team will go to the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl. As in, lifetime achievement realized. So yeah, he was amped up. Remember, while Sherman was speaking to Erin Andrews, he was very specifically addressing Crabtree: “I’m the best corner in the game. When you try me with a sorry receiver like Crabtree, that’s the result you gonna get. Don’t you ever talk about me.

4) Without touching too much on all of the racism set off by “big, scary Black man *terrifying* little blonde White woman,” Richard Sherman is hardly a “thug” (if you simply have to talk smack about Sherman, at least try to use more clever racial code words) Sherman graduated 2nd from his high school, scored 1400/1600 on the S.A.T. and is a Stanford University graduate with a communications degree

note: Sherman never stopped making eye contact with the camera, spoke clearly, never cursed, and answered clearly the questions he was asked. While his bravado was genuine, Sherman knew exactly what he was doing - amping up his Seattle fans, ensuring some guest spots on upcoming talk shows, and perhaps getting a cover deal for the next Sports Illustrated and Madden game (or WWE?). IMHO

The problem here is, America has been deeply conditioned to view Black  people, particularly Black men, in a very narrow spectrum: smiling buffoon (who may also be a criminal) or angry thug (who is definitely a criminal) Or maybe a ‘Will Smith’ or a ‘Barack Obama’…if you’re wealthy enough. "Angry Black man" and "thug" .are such common stereotypes/tropes for BM that they’re almost Hollywood descriptions for castings. A White athlete showing the exact same demeanor would not be called a thug, an ape, and especially not a ni***r. We have a lot of categories we could place a White athlete into in this situation: hyped, exuberant, excited, over-the-top, beast-mode, etc. 

In the end, it’s a game, and—after way too many suggestions to the contrary—even Erin Andrews has said she wasn’t afraid (look at the video again: did she look even remotely sacred?

That’s my 2¢, Here’s Sherman in his own words

For more context, here’s Sherman giving an interview immediately before the one with Andrews — you can even see her standing next to him getting ready.

20th Jan 2014

Daily Kos: Most of you have no idea what Martin Luther King actually did

17th Jan 2014
politicalprof:

In case you didn’t know, the enforcement of drug laws in this country is wildly racist …
ht: Chris Hayes; Wonkblog

politicalprof:

In case you didn’t know, the enforcement of drug laws in this country is wildly racist …

ht: Chris Hayes; Wonkblog

3rd Jan 2014

youarenotyou:

Moniquilliloquies.: About Cop Watch

punkpedagogy:

ibibobo:

apihtawikosisan:

ladyatheist:

i-am-septima:

baddominicana:

poemsofthedead:

note-a-bear:

So there are groups that do this, they stay in highly policed areas on shifts and bring cameras and such, and record to make sure police brutality doesn’t escalate, and when it happens there’s evidence against it.

But that’s not the only way it can happen.

Every single person is entitled to watch an arrest go down as long as they are not obstructing or interfering. That means, if you see cops bumrush someone, even if that person is waving a gun, you are allowed, even legally permitted and encouraged to watch the events occur.

This is important white folks, because the cops work inyourservice. Oh sure, they’re supposedly in the service of “the common good” but we all know that means protecting white people.

-

-

And now a story, when I was in high school, and my mom was working under a horrific principal, she was late to work one day because there was something going on in our neighborhood. Cops were gathered near our pharmacy and a guy was on the roof (it’s a little over one story, so he wasn’t a jumper or anything) and she stayed as long as she could and watched the scenario go down for a while. Not because she’s trifling. not because she’s nosy. But because she saw a POC and cops gathered and said to herself “I want to make sure this goes by the book.”

And that’s all it takes to be a cop watcher.

You acknowledge that you, as a white person, are in a relative position of safety and you watch. You bear witness, because your voice, unfortunately, carries more weight than ours in the criminal justice system.

Justice is not blind, nor should you be.

If there are cops, and they outnumber an individual, shit, even if it’s 1:1, it is your responsibility to keep an eye on the scenario and take down whatever information you can. And if it looks like something shady is going on, you areobligatedto call in to your local precinct and say “Listen, I saw X happen on Y, and it looked questionable.” And if you get a negative response, well, y’know what? You find out if there’s a civilian oversight committee. In NYC we have one, but they’re underfunded and continually being legislated against (currently there’s a statute of 18 months from the time of the event within which you have to file charges).

-

-

If the prospect of keeping vigilant about cops scares you, imagine being a POC, and knowing that no matter what you do, you could be railroaded by a system that wants to not only disenfranchise you, but has no intentions of treating you as a human being.

Take your fears and shove ‘em down, because they’ll never be anything when compared to what we face on a daily basis.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT IS SO FUNNY??? THIS POST HAS SEVEN FUCKING NOTES. BECAUSE GIVING WHITE PEOPLE SOME INFORMATION AND TOOLS THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY USE TO TAKE ACTION AS ALLIES IS NOT WORTH THEM LIKING OR REBLOGGING AND SHARING WITH EACH OTHER. IT’S NOT LIKE THEY ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT! RIGHT? RIGHT? IT’S “FUNNY” CUZ IT’S JUST BLACK AND BROWN LIVES ON THE LINE ANYWAY.

word. we ALL have white followers. but they prefer to reblog jokes or pretty pictures or “universal” (read: non-racial shit) things. let it be a good, useful critique on them and their structures and their fucking bullshit. let it be a word of advice so they can stop being oppressive dicks and *crickets*

we all see you.

But seriously if y’all see some fishy arrests of PoC (or otherwise, for that matter) going down, it’d be great if you could help out as a witness.  ’Cause I can vouch personally for the fact that when PoC speak in each others’ favor, it is immediately disregarded as “helping a brother out”.

I have 2,433 followers. The very least you could do is stop and read this.

Watching the police has become such a habit, that I was sort of taken by surprise when my daughters asked me what I was doing the first time they were with me.  Why are we still, we should go?  They asked.  I said…sometimes the police need to know that people are watching them. 

We’d been walking down Sherbrooke, and what the hell, I’d forgotten it was May Day.  So there was a march, and the riot cops were out in all their insane scary bug-like armour.  And you could see them pushing the people in the march who were straggling.  My daughters asked why, and I couldn’t help it…the cops were already in earshot, but I said, “Some people feel good when they push other people around I guess.”

It made my daughters really nervous and when I thought about it, I was nervous too.  No, I don’t trust that the cops aren’t going to do something that is going to end up with me and my kids getting hurt.  I’ve been ‘rounded up’ before, and had the police driver of the van slam on the breaks every couple of seconds so those of us seated in the back would go flying all over the place. I got a nice bruise on the side of my face before they finally stopped and kicked us out because they needed the space for ‘worse rioters’.

But whatever.  Watching ‘regular’ police action is more important.  When a car screeches up, and two cops get out and they start getting physical with the three boys sitting on a bench, yes, you need to stop and stand there.  And yes, it’s scary.  Because the ability of police officers to use force and pretty much get away with whatever they want to do IS SCARY.  They have that power because it doesn’t get questioned enough.

I sincerely hope you personally have never experienced police brutality.  But you can watch it happen pretty much any hour of the day if you open your eyes. 

I can`t count the number of times I’ve heard of the police abusing their power, and you know what the number one deterrent is to ever holding them accountable?

Lack of witnesses.

The funny thing is…there are almost always witnesses.  Just not ones willing to give witness.

Know what rights you have in your state/county/city when it comes to filming police, and if there are exceptions for certain situations. In most places it’s legal, but in Illinois and a couple other places it’s a felony. Know what you’re allowed to do- I live on the WI/IL state line, and I’ve had WI cops try to intimidate me out of filming before.

When I was at a protest in Chicago (the eavesdropping law used to prosecute people who film cops was temporarily not enforced for the NATO summit) I remember seeing these 3 cops throw a guy on a wall in an L station. They were screaming at him “be a fucking man” and all sorts of other stuff as a group of us walked into the otherwise deserted station, and I pulled out my camera. Suddenly they were very polite, and then an NLG observer showed up and there was suddenly no problem at all with the guy. Conspicuously watching, and especially filming, CAN make an immediate difference.

the supreme court supposedly struck down anti-copwatching laws in 2012. check it out. it definitely *was* a felony, i remember all that. but i’m pretty sure i read that the supreme court deemed those shits unconstitutional.

http://www.infowars.com/supreme-court-upholds-right-to-film-police-even-in-illinois/

seriously though this shit is so important especially if you’re a white gentrifier. the police are a tool of gentrification. if you are a gentrifier and you have any analysis at all about the neighborhood you’re complicit in fucking over, you will be up on the cop activity and if there’s someone getting harassed or arrested you really need to stay and bear witness. not all the people getting displaced get to move to a shittier area. some folks who get displaced are arrested, then evicted for not paying rent or for doing “criminal activity” in their rented home. policing is part and parcel of the process of gentrification - which is a process of colonization and ethnic cleansing.

 

29th Dec 2013

And let’s face it, Jon, there’s no way this man could be Santa. Because the moment white folks saw a Black man with a big old bag coming down the chimney, it’d be time to grab a gun and stand your ground.

(Source: booasaur)

24th Dec 2013

eshusplayground:

annadraconida:

boxlunches:

slightly-insane-black-cat:

thatbloodredreaper:

yarrahs-life:

American History 101

truth. i honestly dont give a rats ass if you unfollow me for this. learn the truth, sometimes the truth hurts. 

^

Reblogging for the gif about shrinking Native American territories. Just look at the huge difference between 1860 and 1870. In just ten years.

This is one of the best posts on Tumblr.

(Source: carlboygenius)

16th Dec 2013
medievalpoc:

poc-creators:

note-a-bear:

covenesque:

comradeocean:

comradeocean:

jacquestati:

currywithrice:


jahalath:


zuky:


abagond:


Broomberg and Chanarin say their work, on show at Johannesburg’s Goodman Gallery, examines “the radical notion that prejudice might be inherent in the medium of photography itself”. They argue that early colour film was predicated on white skin: in 1977, when Jean-Luc Godard was invited on an assignment to Mozambique, he refused to use Kodak film on the grounds that the stock was inherently “racist”.
The light range was so narrow, Broomberg said, that “if you exposed film for a white kid, the black kid sitting next to him would be rendered invisible except for the whites of his eyes and teeth”. It was only when Kodak’s two biggest clients – the confectionary and furniture industries – complained that dark chocolate and dark furniture were losing out that it came up with a solution.
‘Racism’ of early colour photography | Guardian


Makes perfect sense to me. The human eye always adjusts to see people’s faces but the technology of photography developed around adjusting to white people only. You can probably dig deeper and look at the cultural institution that developed around photography for what came to be accepted as “what the camera likes” and the aesthetics of palettes and light conditions and such for more normalization of racist standards. Same can probably be said of a great deal of Eurocentric art, aesthetics, and technology in general.


So glad someone identified this tendency. When I did photography, I found my POC friends impossible to light with the reccomendations given by most photography blogs and such. I also found no techniques on how to photograph people with darker skin tones because even DSLRS require different types of exposures for darker skin.


Are these people serious


Yep cause it’s true
Film is an inherently racist medium, which seems unfortunately to bemost discussed by white authors (Richard Dyer, though, does have a lot of good information in White)
But when Spike Lee has to come up with his own methods of cinematography to film black people, something is definitely wrong
Or when I show up as a dark blob in photos with my white friends, or when I’m the only one who’s face isn’t picked up by any recognition technology, then I’d say film and photography are definitely racist media
edit-
idk how much we should be taking cues on racism from JLG tbh

Also the filters that get used for photo editing (digital and otherwise). Like, I think loads of pictures are specially developed with this blue tone that really lightens people up (while also making everything look washed out). And all the common tutorials (both on tumblr and elsewhere) to improve the lighting/image quality of screencaps for edits and gifs are totally useless for darker skin tones. I wish there were better fandom resources for this shit because it’s fucking frustrating.

reblogging to add:
‘12 Years a Slave,’ ‘Mother of George,’ and the aesthetic politics of filming black skin: (via cinematocat/cesaire)

“Montré Aza Missouri, an assistant professor in film at Howard University, recalls being told by one of her instructors in London that “if you found yourself in the ‘unfortunate situation’ of shooting on the ‘Dark Continent,’ and if you’re shooting dark-skinned people, then you should rub Vaseline on their skin in order to reflect light. It was never an issue of questioning the technology.” In her classes at Howard, Missouri says, “I talk to my students about the idea that the tools used to make film, the science of it, are not racially neutral.” 
Missouri reminds her students that the sensors used in light meters have been calibrated for white skin; rather than resorting to the offensive Vaseline solution, they need to manage the built-in bias of their instruments, in this case opening their cameras’ apertures one or two stops to allow more light through the lens. Filmmakers working with celluloid also need to take into account that most American film stocks weren’t manufactured with a sensitive enough dynamic range to capture a variety of dark skin tones. Even the female models whose images are used as reference points for color balance and tonal density during film processing — commonly called “China Girls” — were, until the mid-1990s, historically white. 
In the face of such technological chauvinism, filmmakers have been forced to come up with workarounds, including those lights thrown on Poitier and a variety of gels, scrims and filters. But today, such workarounds have been rendered virtually obsolete by the advent of digital cinematography, which allows filmmakers much more flexibility both in capturing images and manipulating them during post-production.”

and from the original article:

The artists feel certain that the ID-2 camera and its boost button were Polaroid’s answer to South Africa’s very specific need. “Black skin absorbs 42% more light. The button boosts the flash exactly 42%,” Broomberg explained. “It makes me believe it was designed for this purpose.”
In 1970 Caroline Hunter, a young chemist working for Polaroid in America, stumbled upon evidence that the company was effectively supporting apartheid. She and her partner Ken Williams formed the Polaroid Workers Revolutionary Movement and campaigned for a boycott. By 1977 Polaroid had withdrawn from South Africa, spurring an international divestment movement that was crucial to bringing down apartheid.
The title of the exhibition, To Photograph the Details of a Dark Horse in Low Light, refers to the coded phrase used by Kodak to describe a new film stock created in the early 1980s to address the inability of earlier films to accurately render dark skin.
The show also features norm reference cards that always used white women as a standard for measuring and calibrating skin tones when printing photographs. The series of “Kodak Shirleys” were named after the first model featured. Today such cards show multiple races.


Forever reblog with added commentary

Yes! It’s back! I was trying to find this post

Added information. I really really need a book on cinematography techniques for lighting darker skin tones

I’ve posted information about this before, and I want to reblog it again because it’s so important.
People really need to understand what it means that racism is built into so many of our technologies, our education, our lives…too many people seem to believe that racism is about feelings and interactions.
A lot of the photos I have posted of artworks are old photographs that use films that oversaturate dark skin tones or blast them out with contrast. They need to be modified where possible in order for dark skinned people portrayed in the paintings to be visible at all.

medievalpoc:

poc-creators:

note-a-bear:

covenesque:

comradeocean:

comradeocean:

jacquestati:

currywithrice:

jahalath:

zuky:

abagond:

Broomberg and Chanarin say their work, on show at Johannesburg’s Goodman Gallery, examines “the radical notion that prejudice might be inherent in the medium of photography itself”. They argue that early colour film was predicated on white skin: in 1977, when Jean-Luc Godard was invited on an assignment to Mozambique, he refused to use Kodak film on the grounds that the stock was inherently “racist”.

The light range was so narrow, Broomberg said, that “if you exposed film for a white kid, the black kid sitting next to him would be rendered invisible except for the whites of his eyes and teeth”. It was only when Kodak’s two biggest clients – the confectionary and furniture industries – complained that dark chocolate and dark furniture were losing out that it came up with a solution.

‘Racism’ of early colour photography | Guardian

Makes perfect sense to me. The human eye always adjusts to see people’s faces but the technology of photography developed around adjusting to white people only. You can probably dig deeper and look at the cultural institution that developed around photography for what came to be accepted as “what the camera likes” and the aesthetics of palettes and light conditions and such for more normalization of racist standards. Same can probably be said of a great deal of Eurocentric art, aesthetics, and technology in general.

So glad someone identified this tendency. When I did photography, I found my POC friends impossible to light with the reccomendations given by most photography blogs and such. I also found no techniques on how to photograph people with darker skin tones because even DSLRS require different types of exposures for darker skin.

Are these people serious

Yep cause it’s true

Film is an inherently racist medium, which seems unfortunately to bemost discussed by white authors (Richard Dyer, though, does have a lot of good information in White)

But when Spike Lee has to come up with his own methods of cinematography to film black people, something is definitely wrong

Or when I show up as a dark blob in photos with my white friends, or when I’m the only one who’s face isn’t picked up by any recognition technology, then I’d say film and photography are definitely racist media

edit-

idk how much we should be taking cues on racism from JLG tbh

Also the filters that get used for photo editing (digital and otherwise). Like, I think loads of pictures are specially developed with this blue tone that really lightens people up (while also making everything look washed out). And all the common tutorials (both on tumblr and elsewhere) to improve the lighting/image quality of screencaps for edits and gifs are totally useless for darker skin tones. I wish there were better fandom resources for this shit because it’s fucking frustrating.

reblogging to add:

‘12 Years a Slave,’ ‘Mother of George,’ and the aesthetic politics of filming black skin: (via cinematocat/cesaire)

“Montré Aza Missouri, an assistant professor in film at Howard University, recalls being told by one of her instructors in London that “if you found yourself in the ‘unfortunate situation’ of shooting on the ‘Dark Continent,’ and if you’re shooting dark-skinned people, then you should rub Vaseline on their skin in order to reflect light. It was never an issue of questioning the technology.” In her classes at Howard, Missouri says, “I talk to my students about the idea that the tools used to make film, the science of it, are not racially neutral.”

Missouri reminds her students that the sensors used in light meters have been calibrated for white skin; rather than resorting to the offensive Vaseline solution, they need to manage the built-in bias of their instruments, in this case opening their cameras’ apertures one or two stops to allow more light through the lens. Filmmakers working with celluloid also need to take into account that most American film stocks weren’t manufactured with a sensitive enough dynamic range to capture a variety of dark skin tones. Even the female models whose images are used as reference points for color balance and tonal density during film processing — commonly called “China Girls” — were, until the mid-1990s, historically white.

In the face of such technological chauvinism, filmmakers have been forced to come up with workarounds, including those lights thrown on Poitier and a variety of gels, scrims and filters. But today, such workarounds have been rendered virtually obsolete by the advent of digital cinematography, which allows filmmakers much more flexibility both in capturing images and manipulating them during post-production.”

and from the original article:

The artists feel certain that the ID-2 camera and its boost button were Polaroid’s answer to South Africa’s very specific need. “Black skin absorbs 42% more light. The button boosts the flash exactly 42%,” Broomberg explained. “It makes me believe it was designed for this purpose.”

In 1970 Caroline Hunter, a young chemist working for Polaroid in America, stumbled upon evidence that the company was effectively supporting apartheid. She and her partner Ken Williams formed the Polaroid Workers Revolutionary Movement and campaigned for a boycott. By 1977 Polaroid had withdrawn from South Africa, spurring an international divestment movement that was crucial to bringing down apartheid.

The title of the exhibition, To Photograph the Details of a Dark Horse in Low Light, refers to the coded phrase used by Kodak to describe a new film stock created in the early 1980s to address the inability of earlier films to accurately render dark skin.

The show also features norm reference cards that always used white women as a standard for measuring and calibrating skin tones when printing photographs. The series of “Kodak Shirleys” were named after the first model featured. Today such cards show multiple races.

Forever reblog with added commentary

Yes! It’s back! I was trying to find this post

Added information. I really really need a book on cinematography techniques for lighting darker skin tones

I’ve posted information about this before, and I want to reblog it again because it’s so important.

People really need to understand what it means that racism is built into so many of our technologies, our education, our lives…too many people seem to believe that racism is about feelings and interactions.

A lot of the photos I have posted of artworks are old photographs that use films that oversaturate dark skin tones or blast them out with contrast. They need to be modified where possible in order for dark skinned people portrayed in the paintings to be visible at all.