One thing you noticed about this article on appropriation, is that the author claims to herself what the West is (ostensibly) barren in -- beautiful female to female eroticism; something more playful, more erotic, than woman to man. Another poster here defines pre-literature cultures -- what the West, originator of the nation state, has always been hostile to -- as weaves rather than linear, as organic rather than blunt and enforced, as connective, and feminine. The West has distanced itself from something deeper and more profound, and is the worse for it.And jealous, it wants to wretch what it has removed itself from but also at the same time tame it. Some object, and would have them try and find contentment in the spare, antiseptic path they've chosen. "You can't have what we have not just because you'll ruin it but because it wasyouwho turned your back on mystery in the first place."
We want to appropriate something powerfully female. This is what feminists argue, that patriarchy reveals in its trepidations that it knows the feminine is ultimately far greater -- no avenues can be erroneously left open for it to grow! And it's true; historically, we do believe this, and appropriate to partake of its power.
Only the female power we want to pour ourselves into isn't the tribe across the river's but the one we learned as infants in the company of our mothers.
Mom. Our consciousness developed primarily in her company. Her love -- everything. Her ambivalence, her hatred -- the end; apocalypse. If she was of the people's who disrespected women, felt profound ambivalence towards them, then she wouldn't of had children to give love to but to grab every bit from. And once children started individuating, she'd reject them -- how dare they! And then her quest goes on, for something else receptive to satisfying the need.
Children from mothers like that don't recover. They may build whole grand-male-institutioned societies to help them feel warded against them, but they want as well to own the power that defined their lives -- What might it be like to be the one who is the great destroyer of life, as well as the great enabler of the most ecstatic joy we will ever know -- love?
And so medieval knights dressed themselves in costumes which repeated the brilliant colours, feathers and swishing clothes of their mothers. And kings -- the vaginal maternal crown, as well as placental sceptres. And as priests, tried turning themselves into women, make themselves more female -- so to be more acceptable to mothers than they must have been as trouble-making boys.
And so the most popular current appropriator of the black visage -- are in fact black boys, dressing themselves as mothers. The whole phenomena of black face, indeed, may only have secondarily been about blacks at all … whites, that is, may have projected negative aspects of their mothers onto the black race and quested to re-imbibe them -- perhaps mostly from ownership of "labia" lips than the black skin they dabbed themselves with.
Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…
A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.
The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …