Ever wonder how poachers make a living? Fielding questions from patrons at the Canadian National Exhibition answered that quite clearly for me.
Without exaggeration, we were seriously asked somewhere around 100 times for tiger claws, rhino horns and elephant tusks. Almost the entirety (if not the entirety) of requests were from Asian and Southeast Asian individuals, including a uniformed police officer! Every time we asked why, we’d be greeted with sheepish smiles and replies such as “luck” or “energy”.
For the first half of the show I’d try to rationally explain why these shouldn’t be purchased based on the principles of conservation. Every time their eyes would glaze over and they’d either walk away mid-explanation or wait for me to shut up before saying “so, how much money would it take to get one?”
Needless to say, I got fed up and it was time for a NEW STRATEGY!
Whenever people asked for one, I’d get all wide-eyed and exclaim, “OH NO!! BAD ENERGY!! You don’t want to bring that danger into your life and around your family!!”
Every time it caught the person completely by surprise and they’d beg for more information.
“They used to be considered lucky but the energy has now shifted! Too much **insert endangered animal** blood has been spilled into the Earth and it has angered the spirit world! THEY ARE NOW CURSED!”
When they asked what brings good luck, I told them Inuit and First Nation products when collected with permits.
“If you want your claws and tusks to have balance and good energy, you must only buy from those who live in harmony and balance with nature”.
You’d be damn surprised how often that worked. I hate providing unscientific information but sometimes you have to fight superstitious bullsh*t with superstitious bullsh*t!
Something I find incredibly cool is that they’ve found neandertal bone tools made from polished rib bones, and they couldn’t figure out what they were for for the life of them.
“Wait you’re still using the exact same fucking thing 50,000 years later???”
“Well, yeah. We’ve tried other things. Metal scratches up and damages the hide. Wood splinters and wears out. Bone lasts forever and gives the best polish. There are new, cheaper plastic ones, but they crack and break after a couple years. A bone polisher is nearly indestructible, and only gets better with age. The more you use a bone polisher the better it works.”
It’s just.
50,000 years. 50,000. And over that huge arc of time, we’ve been quietly using the exact same thing, unchanged, because we simply haven’t found anything better to do the job.
i also like that this is a “ask craftspeople” thing, it reminds me of when art historians were all “the fuck” about someone’s ear “deformity” in a portrait and couldn’t work out what the symbolism was until someone who’d also worked as a piercer was like “uhm, he’s fucked up a piercing there”. interdisciplinary shit also needs to include non-academic approaches because crafts & trades people know shit ok
One of my professors often tells us about a time he, as and Egyptian Archaeologist, came down upon a ring of bricks one brick high. In the middle of a house. He and his fellow researchers could not fpr the life of them figure out what tf it could possibly have been for. Until he decided to as a laborer, who doesnt even speak English, what it was. The guy gestures for my prof to follow him, and shows him the same ring of bricks in a nearby modern house. Said ring is filled with baby chicks, while momma hen is out in the yard having a snack. The chicks can’t get over the single brick, but mom can step right over. Over 2000 years and their still corraling chicks with brick circles. If it aint broke, dont fix it and always ask the locals.
I’ve seen some women who are offended by this and say it’s ridiculous that her cleavage is showing and things of that sort.
Personally, I think it’s great.
Why should we have an image of a women with her hair tied up and flexing her muscles like she’s a man? (not that that isn’t great too!) In a way it suggests that when our hair is down, our breasts are visible and we wear (GASP) lipstick, we’re somehow lesser than men? We can do it! We can be feminine and successful.
You see what I’m saying here, ladies?
You don’t have to lose your femininity. Being feminine is great. Being masculine is great. Strength is not limited to one way of being.
THE COMMENTARY IS MAKING MY HEART SING
(original text by tumblr user autumninthenorth)
oh my fucking god, this again
okay
Have you even looked at the actual Rosie the Riveter poster lately?
She’s ALREADY WEARING LIPSTICK. AND MASCARA. AND BLUSH. Her eyebrows have been PENCILED AND TWEEZED. And underneath her work bandana? HER HAIR HAS BEEN CURLED. Rosie the Riveter is a beautifulwoman. This image in no way implies that wearing feminine apparel (like cosmetics) is a negative thing.
The reason that she has her hair up and her shirt buttoned and is flexing her arms has nothing to do with prudery, or with trying to be “masculine” (as if shows of physical strength are unique to one gender). It has to do with the information at the bottom of the poster: Rosie is involved in war production. That means doing hard physical labor in a 1940s factory, where large heavy machinery can easily snag a loose lock of hair, or a bit of jewelry, or an undone button. “Makeover” Rosie would not be able to do the real Rosie’s job without serious risk of injury to herself or the people around her. In that sense, the new poster is implying that no, women are NOT capable of doing the same work as men, because they are too weak/vain/self-absorbed/whatever. The old poster is saying that, while still being feminine, women are just as capable of doing the same work as men.
Also? The new and “improved” Rosie was specifically drawn to be ANTI-FEMINIST. “[William Murai] created this image for the Brazilian Alfa Magazineto accompany an article about the End of Feminism. ‘The idea was to remake the famous feminism symbol “Rosie the Riveter” [into] a lady who is giving up on her duties and trying to look sexy again.’” (emphasis mine)
Giving up her duties and trying to look sexy? For whom, exactly? According to the artist (and the patriarchy), men. In other words, quit your job, look hot, find a man, gb2 the kitchen, and make me a sandwich, bitch. Also known as THE SAME TIRED-ASS SHIT WOMEN HEAR EVERY. FUCKING. DAY.
The new poster is not “progress.” It is not about women being “feminine andsuccessful.” It’s about the exact opposite: women being reduced to their appearance and their sex appeal according to the standards imposed by the male gaze. She is pretty, but that’s all she is, because that’s all women are supposed to be. The real Rosie (you know, the feminist icon?) is beautiful, and feminine, and strong enough to do the work necessary to keep her country safe, just the same as any man. Her worth is not in her appeal as a decorative object, but in the product of her labor and her own awareness of her abilities.
Rosie the Riveter. Accept NO substitutes.
YES FOR THAT COMMENTARY
…neither of those pictures is Rosie the Riveter. The picture you’re calling the “original Rosie” is “We Can Do It.” It caught on in the 80’s after being found in someone’s house in the 80’s (it was also not widespread, but a poster to increase moral and production in one chain of factories).
This is Rosie the Riveter
She was painted by Norman Rockwell. She’s strong from doing manual labor, she’s dirty from working, she’s eating her lunch apologetically. She’s still got the makeup and curls thing going for her, but she’s not posed to be pretty. Rosie was painted with respect toward the real world Rosies (actual nickname for the women who took men’s factory jobs during WWII). We Can Do It was painted to make them work harder, to benefit the factory owners.
And sometime in the 80’s a poster that was created to treat women like cogs in a machine, became the symbol of feminism, and the real Rosie the Riveter painting doesn’t get much credit at all.
The history and evolution of propaganda posters is fascinating.
I love the Rockwell image so so so much. I love how she isn’t particularly “beautiful”, I love her build, I love her muscles, I love her worksuit and lunch box. It’s a wonderful image, and deserves to be more widely known than it is.
Also being told we can be pretty and “don’t have to be masculine” is not revolutionary at all lol the patriarchy tells us the exact same thing shut up
I love the lowkey implication in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (especially in the Gene Wilder movie) that Willy Wonka was minding his own business one day and he just saw this skinny looking kid staring up at his factory, licking his lips, and he was just like, “Shit, that kid needs some chocolate, but he’s clearly too poor to afford any and there’s no way I can run outside right now and reveal my existence to the world, right? Damn. Okay. I can send an Oompa Loompa. No, that’ll scare the kid. What candy does he even like anyway? What if I give him the wrong one? All right, we need to get this kid into the factory so that he can pick his favorite treat. But what happens when he leaves? Shit, shit, shit, okay, we’ll just give him the factory. Give him the whole factory. That’s the only way. But how? Come on, Wonka, be inconspicuous here. I’ve got it. A nationwide contest inviting multiple kids into the factory where I’ll reveal that the winner gets the factory. Crap, no, then there will be four other kids in the factory. Okay, no problem, we’ll just kill them all until he’s the only one left. Yeeeah, that’s a good plan. Okay, everyone, places. We’ve got literally one shot at this.”
You don’t think Willy Wonka had connections with what seems to be the only candy store in the entire town?
And what, we’re supposed to believe that after years of starving with no money, all of a sudden, Charlie conveniently finds some money right in front of said candy store?
And remember, in the movie (which is honestly one of the few movie adaptations that’s better than the books), the worker picks the chocolate bars that he hands to Charlie.
Wonka and the workers knew exactly what they were doing.
Chaotic good at its best.
this was an interesting read and all but i just read the second last line as “wonka and the wonkers” and now i feel…… strange
