"i’ll keep you safe while you sleep."
a sleepy time playlist
The Cinematic Orchestra - To Build a Home // Agnes Obel - Riverside // Feist - Caught a Long Wind // Aria - Holocene // Natalie Lundley - Born to Die // Daughter - Smother // A Fine Frenzy - Riversong // The Civil Wars - Dust to Dust // Lykke Li - I Know Places // Ben Howard - Black Flies // Bonobo - First Fires // Gabriel Royal - Remember Us // Jess Buckley- Hallelujah // Bon Iver - Holocene // Birdy - I’ll Never Forget You // Dry the River - Demons & Bible Belt // Daughter - Shallow // The Cinematic Orchestra - Arrival of the Birds & Transformation // Ellie Goulding - I Know You Care // Brooke Waggoner - Fresh Pair of Eyes // Coldplay - Midnight // Couer de Pirate - Place de la Republique
God’s Creation - 2014
This is my contribution to the upcoming season 10 in 10 days as well as my comeback as an artist - the days of waiting and crashings are over and I finally can draw without interruptions. I just love my new Laptop!
If anyone wonders what the enochian word means - it’s supposed to mean God’s creation, just like the title, but I have no idea if that’s right I have no clue about the language and asked a dictionary that seemed to be trustworthy - I hope for the best.
Autism is a poorly-understood neurological disorder that can impair an individual’s ability to engage in various social interactions. But little 5-year-old Iris Grace in the UK is an excellent example of the unexpected gifts that autism can also grant – her exceptional focus and attention to detail have helped her create incredibly beautiful paintings that many of her fans (and buyers) have likened to Monet’s works.
Little Iris is slowly learning to speak, whereas most children have already begun to speak at least a few words by age 2. Along with speech therapy, her parents gradually introduced her to painting, which is when they discovered her amazing talent.
“We have been encouraging Iris to paint to help with speech therapy, joint attention and turn taking,” her mother, Arabella Carter-Johnson, explains on her website. “Then we realised that she is actually really talented and has an incredible concentration span of around 2 hours each time she paints. Her autism has created a style of painting which I have never seen in a child of her age, she has an understanding of colours and how they interact with each other.”
Much better version of the same subject matter I posted earlier.
Anonymous said: I was wondering: Ethnicity is where your family comes from. (Norway, Zimbabwe, Greece, Thailand, Etc.) Race is your skin tone (in its most simple terms.) Or at least, that's how I've always seen it (once I figured out what race was-I didn't know until I started crying to my mum worried that I was different from my friend because she had pointed out that we are of different races). But what do others think, would you know? Because I get a lot of pissed off people when I them my ethnicity.
Hello! These concepts are complex, and the conflation between them often leads to a lot of misunderstandings. I’m guessing people get pissed off because you don’t look quite like how people of that ethnic group, country or culture are expected to look, due to the strong hold of stereotypes. Here’s generally what I think about what is ethnicity and race- and how they’ve been conceptualised by people -kinda long, btw:
1. Firstly, just a clarification, ethnicity doesn’t quite correlate with national boundaries all the time. While in some countries, the name of the country is also an ethnicity (German etc), many other countries have multiple ethnic groups because of immigration or colonial-era drawn state boundaries. Because of this, in many countries today, nationality: the country you were born or are a citizen of- (like yes, Zimbabwe, Greece, Thailand, China) isn’t synonymous with ethnicity. Due to how increasingly cosmopolitan our world is today, ethnicity as used today usually refers to shared ancestry- and has come to mean shared genetic heritage and is usually quite specific. I.e Not just “Asian” but “Han Chinese”.
(Names have power- is it also fair for people in the US to be called “Americans” when it’s the name of two giant continents? Some people in Latin America don’t think so.)
- Both ethnicity and nationality are good indicators of cultural identity, compared to race. For example, ethnic groups often have specific cultural traditions. The Chinese diaspora has differences, but they celebrate Chinese New Year etc. The presence of multi-ethnic nation states means there are also larger cultural identities shared by all the people in a country across ethno-religious lines (i.e American culture).
- Today, ethnicity alone could, but doesn’t always determine identity- nationality has implications on a person’s identity because people of the same ethnicity living in different countries aren’t exactly the same. For example, a person of Han ancestry (ethnicity) from mainland China and a Han Chinese from Indonesia are culturally rather different in many ways even if they share some commonalities by virtue of a similar origin. China itself has many other ethnic groups- minorities like Uighurs, who practise mostly Islam, for example. So that’s why nationality isn’t always synonymous with ethnicity today.
- Here’s an example: Kirsty Coventry- she is a Zimbabwean Olympic champion swimmer. Yes, ethnically she is of European origin because she’s descended from Zimbabwe’s white minority. But she was born in Zimbabwe, is a Zimbabwean citizen and huge numbers of black Zimbabweans- not just white Zimbabweans- crowded the capital welcome her when she returned from the 2008 Beijing Olympics. To them, she is one of them, even if yes, racially, she’s “white” and they’re “black”. Blackness as we use it is synonymous with “African origin”. Would it be accurate to say there is no “black” influence at all on her identity or nationality?
- Nonetheless, compared to the colour-conscious definition of race in the US, most historians, scientists and anthropologists regard ethnicity as a good and accepted way of classifying someone. Because it speaks of specific geographical origin and genetic haplogroups- a sound basis in biology and history. Homogenising and defining people by their skin colour ALONE makes little sense as it glosses over far more important things like language, cultural ties and geographic origin- and actual genetics.
2. Furthermore, race is an artificial social construct. It has always been more about Othering rather than truly classifying humans biologically. It arose in the era before modern genetics revealed that it is very likely all humans originated in Africa. It sees our species as a narrow, rigidly-defined palette instead of a gradient and spectrum. Race fails terribly to classify the fluidity of identity and has almost no biological basis at all- you do not suddenly cross into an area of “whiteness” to “none-white”. You just have a gradual diffusion of genetic haplogroups which are kinda like a mosaic in your genetic code. As you move further away from Europe towards Asia, people in Eurasia are neither wholly “Asian” or “European”. The presence of European genetic haplogroups extends far BEYOND the political boundaries of what we call “Europe” today. Central Asians for example, simply have other haplogroups in addition to European ones.
Scientific racism thought Africans were less evolved than people of European origin- we now know it’s nonsense as we’re all Homo sapiens. It also reflected rivalries and faultlines in Europe- Irish were for example, seen as “less white” a century or so ago.
- The reason I get uncomfortable when people say “white people have no culture around the world” and I downright scoff when white supremacists say “white civilisation has invented so many things” is because they homogenise and group together people who do not see themselves as whole.
- What on earth is “white” culture, for example? Europe? But Europe isn’t homogenous (look how much they fought each other for centuries) and has had many non-European influences on its culture throughout history- like from North Africa and the Middle-East. Reducing things to terms like “white culture” is ahistorical and narrowly assumes cultural ties were forged based on skin colour alone- completely ignoring the cultural links between various civilisations that bordered the Mediterranean, for example. Like when they were all part of the Roman Empire.
Or part of other empires. Like the largest empire in the ancient world, Achaemenid Iran (yes, it’s bigger than the Roman Empire) I’m pretty sure that’s a chunk of the Balkans and modern Greece I see coloured Green too.
- And the link to the Mediterranean, for example, definitely left its mark culturally- for example, Carthage. That’s modern day Libya in North Africa. There are plenty of Roman ruins still there! Using the term “white people” outside the US or modern-day context is pretty illogical and distorts human history precisely because they are social constructs. And the outlines of our world were completely different 2000 years ago. Sure, Italians and Germans are both racialised as white in the US today. But 2000 years ago? There were PLENTY of African legionnaires serving the empire- fighting the Germanic tribes who were the primary enemy of Rome, for example! So lumping the Romans as “white civilisation” and “white people” also erases the role of non-Europeans in the empire.
- And today? Even the European Union isn’t some harmonious whole and doesn’t see itself as “collectively white”:
In the UK:
In Greece, because of austerity imposed by the EU:
3. Skin tone is the most common way of “distinguishing” between “different” races in the US and many parts of the world. But it is not the only way humans have racially othered one another throughout history. Look at this girl. Fair skin, blonde hair and light coloured eyes, no?
- But she’s Hana Brady, a Czech Jewish girl who was murdered in the Holocaust. Her story became famous after a Japanese teacher examining children’s effects at the Holocaust museum found her suitcase, because she’d written her name on it. It didn’t matter to Hitler that she had looked more “Aryan” than even he himself. Many Jewish people looked like her- but that wouldn’t save them if their ancestry was discovered.
- That is why race is artificial. Jewish people were Othered because of their religion and culture- and to an extent, Jewish people can be seen as an ethnicity because the community often intermarried. But many European Jews were actually very heavily related to the surrounding European communities they lived in. Although eventually they tended to marry within their community, it seems that for centuries before that, Jewish men who originated from the Middle-East intermarried with European women to the extent that up to 80% of Ashkenazi Jews can trace their maternal line to prehistoric Europe. Are there cultural differences and unique things about the Jewish community? Definitely yes. But pretending that made them a different “race”, that biologically they were so distinct from their surrounding communities was just a lie to feed Nazi nationalism.
4. As artificial as race is, it is a social construct that has entrenched itself because of scientific ignorance and colonialism. So I understand why people have to use terms of “white” and “black” to understand Ferguson. Because these terms are how the power structure in say, US society, organises itself and it is necessary to use this terminology to deconstruct and understand modern racism. I understand African Americans identifying with “black culture” because that common cultural identity did grow out of the solidarity they formed to fight slavery and Jim Crow, and this history still affects their experiences today.
- However, I would think it would be good for people to not feel they have to identify themselves racially if it is very, very difficult for you to classify yourself. Identify yourself by your ethnicity, by your culture and nationality instead. I mean, what does skin tone say? Nothing much, honestly. A person from the Yoruba ethnic group found in Nigeria and Benin is hardly the same as a Xhosa from South Africa.
Nelson Mandela was a Xhosa, an ethnic group in South Africa. One challenge he spoke about fighting apartheid in the 1950s was overcoming the ethnic rivalries and cultural differences between various African ethnic groups in South Africa.
A fair skinned person could be Greek. They could be German. Hardly the same culturally and even ethnicity wise even if they’re both from Europe (their genetic haplogroups wouldn’t be EXACTLY the same). A fair skinned person might not even be European- a Punjabi from India. Or a Persian from Iran. Or a Pashtun from Afghanistan. Or a Syrian, or Turkish.
This is Nazanin Afshin-Jam. She is Iranian- she lives in Canada because both her parents fled there with her during the 1979 Revolution.
5. The fact that race is very political is obvious from how, in the US, whiteness is usually understood to be synonymous with European origin. It’s allegedly a descriptor of skin colour- but light-skinned Indians, Afghans, Syrians and Turkish people are often racialised as non-white even if they’re fair- much fairer than many Europeans sometimes. They’re seen as “white-passing” and many white supremacists would say they’re not really white. Even though guess what? The gene for fair skin found in most Europeans originated in India or the Middle-East. The first white person wasn’t even “European” at all. Fair skin is not exclusively owned by Europe. Many light-skinned Indians look the way they look PRECISELY because some of them have this gene too.
- Latin@s are a good example of one group of people who show the artificiality of race in the US context. Because their nationality and culture is often neither wholly “white” or “non-white” but a fusion of European, indigenous American and African influences. Ethnically, Mexico, for example, is as diverse as the US- there are people European, African and indigenous ancestry and far more people are mixed-race. Saying they have to be “white” or “non-white” assumes “whiteness” is a default- and makes quite little sense in Mexico when the heart of Mexican national identity is seen as being a fusion of both European and indigenous influences. “Mexico” itself comes from the Aztec name for the centre of the Aztec empire.
- A Mexican of predominantly European origin would still likely celebrate the Day of the Dead- which may have Catholic ties today- but is really a reinvention of an ancient Aztec celebration that honoured the Aztec goddess of the underworld, Mictecacihuatl. Despite colonialism, the culture of Mexico and many Latin American countries is very, very steeped in the culture of the original Americans compared to the US, due to the fact that much more people there have indigenous ancestry. Colonialism couldn’t erase all that.
- Insisting Mexicans are uniformly “non-white” or that light-skinned Mexicans can’t be real latinos completely conflates ethnicity and nationality- which CANNOT be done in multi-ethnic countries. It’s their nationality and culture- Mexican- that is the basis for this shared celebration of the Day of the Dead, not even just ethnicity and definitely not “race”. Like how so many Americans celebrate the 4th of July. So, because this Othering of Mexicans as “non-white” is motivated by sociopolitical factors, it oversimplifies mixed European and indigenous heritage at the heart of their national identity- which is intended to embrace ALL Mexicans no matter their skin colour.
- Latin America is often racially Othered in opposition to English speaking North America as “non-white”, and this isn’t really based on proper anthropology or genetics. Why this Othering? Because for example, the US fought wars and had a rivalry with Mexico. The Mexican-American war anyone? The Spanish-American war? Where there was a lot of white saviour complex about the horror of Spanish colonialism in Cuba (like, I mean, pot, kettle, black?) Language. Society. Politics.
6. Ultimately, we should recognise the entire US construct of race (the most commonly used one I see on tumblr) and its terms has a whole crapload of limitations because its formation wasn’t based on an earnest, objective attempt to biologically categorise the diversity of humanity. It was tainted by bias and scientific racism, that sought to draw a dichotomy between people of European origin and the rest of the world. It is not an honest descriptor of even skin colour but loaded with sociopolitical divisions. In other countries, racial categorisation operates differently also because it’s a social construct.
^ 2010 US Census form: How about having a box when you can fill in your ethnicity or previous nationality? Not your “race”. Because it looks like many Latin@ Americans and Arab Americans have no box to check and are ostensibly “some other race”. Because…”Arab” and “Latin@” are also cultural identities because people in the Arab world or who speak Latin American Spanish aren’t even all uniformly the same colour. “Arab" is quite a panethnic group and identity.
- That is why I feel people should not keep on insisting people should be categorised by race if they don’t fit neatly in a box. It’s a damaging concept that makes no sense biologically, that has Othered and demonised people for centuries and distorted the origin and links between various cultures. Identify yourself by your ethnicity, culture and nationality- unless say, in whatever country you’re from, your skin colour has led to a unique, shared culture and heritage experience that it makes sense for you to identify with because it’s part of your identity- like black people in the US, for example. But terms like “white”, “brown” (and even “black”, when used to refer to the diverse African continent itself) just egregiously homogenises diverse groups of people and really, IMO, the entire concept of “race” needs to die.