Posts tagged things they never taught me
Posts tagged things they never taught me
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.
THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you.
we’re doing this rn in theology class but im gonna be That Person and ask for a source because this sounds legit but if im gonna talk about this im gonna need to cite something
ok found a few sources for this actually so Yes this seems like a solid reading of the quote
http://www.ualberta.ca/~cbidwell/DCAS/third.htm (about a third of the way down)
I need someone to preach this. I’ll have to use it in some spoken word at church.
Jesus said slap that hoe back.
Yay, sources! I heard this a while ago but didn’t have any evidence to go on. I’m so glad. That passage isn’t about being nice to your oppressors, turning the other cheek isn’t an act of passivity. It’s about turning the tables and taking back dignity. It’s about shaming those who would oppress. People don’t seem to get that Jesus wasn’t a ‘bear your yoke quietly’ kind of guy. He was an agitator and a radical, and these kind of readings inspire me so much to fight, not just people on the street but people in the church who would have us accept their toxic teachings and ask for more.
Yeah, shit like this? Just proves how much those in power deliberately warp shit to their benefit. They twist any sort of resistance to the status quo to be utterly useless and then sneak it into everything as subtle propaganda. Like how “violence is never the answer” and “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” are the twisted versions that deprive folks of justice. No revolution was truly 100% bloodless, tho history can be rewritten to erase that fact, or skew it to serve as fear-mongering bullshit.
Lt. V. Rhodes of the WAAC at Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia 1943 by Toni Frissell
Picture shot by Toni Frissell
the past was fucked up
Couple sleeping in a Morrison shelter during the Blitz 1940s WWII
Girls dancing in the streets of Paris, 1950s.
Last time I checked, Mystique was a blue, bisexual, shapeshifting bad guy who’s attempted genocide but also has a sympathetic backstory, and I’ve never once seen a guy being asked to justify his boner for her.
Isn’t that fucking funny?
I didn’t know she was bisexual.
I’m glad you know it now!
Yes, probably the most significant romantic relationship that Mystique ever had was with Destiny, a blind, mutant, precognitive woman she ran the Brotherhood with, and the pair of them raised Rogue together as their adopted daughter. They were always supposed to be a couple, even back in the 80s, but because censorship is stupid it wasn’t confirmed that they were a couple until pretty recently.
In fact, the original plan for Nightcrawler’s origin was for Mystique to be, not his mother, but his FATHER, with Destiny as his mother, because, you know, shapeshifting. But that didn’t happen. In fact, one of the few things that annoyed me about X-Men: First Class was that Azazel was both included and heavily foreshadowed to be Nightcrawler’s dad, like he is in the comics. Because, come on, guys! This was 2011 and they had the chance to do a… what’s the opposite of an M-Preg story? F-Sire? Well, at any rate, they had a second chance to do a cool lesbian thing the comics weren’t allowed to do. Why pass that up?
People on the Golden Gate Bridge soon after it opened in 1937
"It is interesting how impossible it is to remember a time when my head was not full of these unreal people, things and events. When I ask friends and colleagues what is their first precise memory of a fairy tale they almost all come up with some shock administered by that psychological terrorist, Andersen - the little mermaid walking on knives, Hans in the icy palace of the Snow Queen. But these shocks happen to people and children who already need and inhabit the other world which gets into our heads and becomes necessary - a world of suns and moons and forests, of princesses and goose girls, of old men and women, benign and malign, of talking birds and flying horses, magic roses and magic puddings, turnips and pigs, impenetrable castles and petrification, glass mountains and glass coffins, poisonous apples and blinding thorns, ogres and imps, spindles and spun gold, tasks and prohibitions, danger and comfort (for the good people) after it. It is very odd - when you come to think of it - that human beings in all sorts of societies, ancient and modern, have needed these untrue stories. It is much odder than the need for religious stories (myths) or semi-historical stories (legends) or history, national or personal. Even as a little girl I perceived its oddity. These "flat" stories appear to be there because stories are a pervasive and perpetual human characteristic, like language, like play."
from her article “Happy ever after” in the Guardian, 3rd January 2004