10 4 / 2014

07 4 / 2014

(Source: gay-men, via skinnedheart)

07 4 / 2014

wocinsolidarity:

In 1968, during the administration of US President Lyndon B. Johnson, Eartha Kitt encountered a substantial professional setback after she made anti-war statements during a White House luncheon. Kitt was invited to the White House luncheon and was asked by Lady Bird Johnson about the Vietnam War. She replied: “You send the best of this country off to be shot and maimed. No wonder the kids rebel and take pot.”

During a question and answer session, Kitt stated:

The children of America are not rebelling for no reason. They are not hippies for no reason at all. We don’t have what we have on Sunset Blvd. for no reason. They are rebelling against something. There are so many things burning the people of this country, particularly mothers. They feel they are going to raise sons — and I know what it’s like, and you have children of your own, Mrs. Johnson — we raise children and send them to war.

Her remarks reportedly caused Mrs. Johnson to burst into tears and led to a derailment in Kitt’s career

!!!!!

(Source: napoleon--in--rags, via slashemup)

07 4 / 2014

skinnedheart:

queertarot:

QUEEN OF SWORDS - CRISTY C. ROAD

It’sMe! Thank you Tour Wifey!

skinnedheart:

queertarot:

QUEEN OF SWORDS - CRISTY C. ROAD

It’sMe! Thank you Tour Wifey!

06 4 / 2014

yellowxperil:

yellowxperil:

my mom on food gentrification & coconuts, 1st world privilege, and her boat immigration story. oh and also her attempting to say “white people ruin everything” and succeeding the third time

this is a good one too

03 4 / 2014

prunellavulgaris:

Permanent Ruin @ Smash It Dead

prunellavulgaris:

Permanent Ruin @ Smash It Dead

(via punkwoc)

03 4 / 2014

dandelionn-rootz asked: What is your reason for putting punk into academia? Seems interesting.

revoltofthecockroachpeople:

This is a question I ask myself a lot, and I don’t know if I have a good answer. I’ve been wanting to write something about this for a while, though, so bear with me.

I didn’t actually intend to write about punk when I started grad school, I just wanted to do something related to Chicana/o music and identity. I grew up in a farm town near Saginaw, MI, really removed from any kind of Chicana/o community, so reading about the Chicano Movement and listening to musicians like El Vez were really important in developing some kind of consciousness, and that’s what motivated me at first.

And then eventually I discovered East L.A. bands like the Brat and Los Illegals, and finding out that Chicana/os had been in punk since the beginning was a big moment. I played in punk bands all through high school and into college, but I got really dissatisfied with the scene in Saginaw at a certain point, so I kind of gave up on music and started focusing more on academia. Finding out about the East L.A. scene and other early punk bands with Chicana/os in them, like the Zeros, the Plugz, and the Bags was a big deal, and then finding out about everything that’s coming out of the South L.A. scene right now was a huge deal because it got me excited about current punk for the first time in a long time. So I decided that this was what I wanted to write about.

That being said, I feel a lot of ambivalence about writing about punk within an academic framework. There are a lot of reasons why academia as an institution is at odds with a punk or DIY ethos, some of which I wrote about here in response to Punk is a Moving Target, a really insightful conversation between Golnar Nikpour and Mimi Thi Nguyen. To reiterate one part of that, though, I’m uncomfortable with the way that researchers gather knowledge from people outside of academia and then publish writings that generally only circulate within academia. That kind of gatekeeping just doesn’t seem compatible with the goal of creating non-hierarchical communities.

More specifically, though, I feel a real tension about writing about punks of color within an academic framework. On one level, my experience of being Chicano is very specific and very different from that of many of the people I’ve talked to in the course of my research. So I sometimes feel like the arguments I want to make come out of my own understanding of being Chicano and don’t necessarily reflect the actual lived experiences of the people I’m writing about, which is problematic.

On another level, academia is a largely white world, and I feel a lot of discomfort about presenting punks of color to a white gaze. Just one example of what I mean, I went to a conference last year and gave a paper critiquing theorizations of DIY as primarily an anti-capitalist ethos, which is the way it’s generally understood in academia, arguing that for marginalized communities it can also be understood as a survival tactic. I gave the example of the singer of Social Conflict going to services at a local church so that he could take the devotional tapes that they gave out, which he would then record over with his own music and distribute. It is a funny story, but when it got a big laugh from the room, I had this moment of panic, like I was making brown people perform their poverty for a room that was probably 90% white. It was really unsettling, and it’s something I’m still trying to figure out how to manage.

At the same time, though, most academic writing about punk is generally really bad, and most of it also ignores punks of color. And what has been written about Chicana/o punks has mostly been about the early East L.A. scene (and mostly just about the Brat and Los Illegals, hardly ever Thee Undertakers or the Stains or anyone else). So, as disillusioned as I am with academia, I do hope that whatever I’m able to come up with will at least expand the conversation in ways that are really important.

03 4 / 2014

revoltofthecockroachpeople:

I recently acquired a copy of the chapbook Punk is a Moving Target, a conversation between Mimi Thi Nguyen (creator of the Race Riot and Slander zines, and an Associate Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies and Asian American Studies) and Golnar Nikpour (drummer for In School, former coordinator of Maximum Rocknroll, and a fellow grad student).

The central premise is that “punk” is an incredibly diverse and continually evolving global cultural phenomenon and therefore defies any attempt at a simple definition. So, for instance, as much as we might like to think that to be punk is necessarily a radical political gesture, the ambiguity of punk means that it can also be adopted by those whose politics are thoroughly conservative or oppressive, as well as by those who are a-political (which, fuck it, is basically the same thing anyway).

There’s something thought-provoking on every single page, but the part that’s of particular interest to me is their critique of academic attempts to theorize or write the history of punk. Since this is more or less what I’m doing at this very moment, there was a lot for me to consider while reading—and to continue to consider and re-consider with each subsequent reading.

One of their biggest complaints is that the version of punk that appears in these “punk studies” has very little to do with their lived experiences of punk. This is something that I take to heart, as the more I think about the ethics of the kind of work I’m doing, the more I’m convinced that it’s my duty to the people who are generous enough to talk to me to present their experiences in a way that corresponds as closely as possible to their own understandings of them.

This is closely related to another critique, which is that the authors of these studies present themselves as experts or authorities on a movement that, ideally, opposes hierarchies/authority. As Golnar says in her review of White Riot: Punks and the Politics of Race in MRR, “I am leery of those academic ‘experts’ whose object of study is punk, not only because I don’t consider the punk scene an intellectual little league that needs legitimacy bequeathed to it by professionals, but also because punk—auto-archiving, self-aware, and interested in its own history—operates on the premise that everyone is an expert.”

This is in serious tension with the function of writing a dissertation as it is traditionally understood, which is precisely to establish yourself as an “expert” in a field. In turn, to be an expert in a field is synonymous with being a kind of gatekeeper, able to dispense or withhold a particular body of knowledge.

This is a tension that I will have to negotiate constantly if I’m to do my ethical duty to the people I’ve interviewed. To this end, and despite the protestations of my supervisor, recognizing that I have no ownership over the knowledge that has been shared with me, I’ve decided to include full transcriptions of all of my interviews with the finished dissertation. So they’ll all be accessible as soon the dissertation is. But this is only one example.

Finally, Mimi’s observation that the way “academic study is imagined to lend legitimacy to an object” also means subjecting that object to “administrative-bureaucratic measures” is also something that I’ve been grappling with lately. One of the primary goals of my work is to bring greater recognition to the contributions of Chicana/os to the history of punk, and to compare this to a broader lack of recognition of Chicana/o contributions to American culture. But how do I reconcile this with the beliefs and aspirations of people who don’t necessarily want recognition outside of their own communities for precisely the reasons Mimi states?

Anyway, apologies for going on so long, these are just some questions I’m turning over in my head. The take-away is that this chapbook is incredibly insightful and necessary reading for anyone who is interested in punk from an academic or philosophical standpoint. So find a copy to read. Buy one if you can, or, if you have the means, buy two copies and give one to a zine library so that other people can read it, too.

I’m glad that the chapbook is doing the work we want it to do. I really appreciate this thoughtful response, and hey, I should note that I’m not innocent - I wrote about race and riot grrrl (though I suppose I convinced myself that the published essay was pretty much seeded in my zines and columns over twenty years ago —ugh, I’m ancient in punk years— and it was bothering me to see racism glossed in riot grrrl historiographies, so….). I am presently writing about being an object of study in punk studies (even if if the premise is “leave us alone”) for an academic journal. It’s hard to know how best to respond, but I’m trying some things out. 

03 4 / 2014

(Source: altercuro, via arabellesicardi)

02 4 / 2014

zgmfd:

Teenagers Battle The Thing (1958)

zgmfd:

Teenagers Battle The Thing (1958)

(via lalalaetc)