Thanks Em! I’m actually a regular American gal and not an academic per se, but I am a somewhat over-educated lawyer so you’re not completely off base :)

First: I agree with you, she is saying WOC shouldn’t be offended.

“I...thought this article was dumb and an overreaction. I ‘get it’ and yet, still think it’s an overreaction” = “you shouldn’t be offended”

Second: I agree that, “Telling anyone they are entitled to their opinion is super fucking dismissive” but aren’t…

We are all human, but there are nuances. Differences are not bad. A person’s appearance tells a part of their story, but it’s not the whole story.

Whether or not she intended to compare herself to black women has nothing to do with why it is offensive. It’s offensive because she took a lyric about how underappreciated black features are in fact, superior to white features (in the opinion of Sir Mix a Lot) and obliviously used it to compliment her sterotypically…

I feel like if that’s all it was she could have gone with the far less problematic “Baby’s Got Back” as a caption. THAT I could maybe write off as cluelessly quoting a song. Not so much the Oakland/LA thing.

Actually, they are not the same thing. Even if Merriam Webster or dictionary.com tells you so for expediency’s sake.

Dating myself here, but the original song is satire. Mix o’lot’s girlfriend was a legit actress/dancer but she could only get jobs being a booty shaker in hip hop videos. He’s calling out that there is no place for WoC in Hollywood/fashion/entertainment. The only roles are for their fetishized backsides.

Because apparently they can’t read, or don’t want to read. Until Blake Lively actually visits Oakland, and/or helps with the struggle that most blacks deal with in the inner city, she needs to keep her black culture appropriation quips to herself.

Drop the attitude? Faux outrage? I’m being nasty? Oh, please. Your supercilious, passive aggressive, fake ass, candy ass bullshit is just as nasty and full of attitude as anything I’ve said. Listen here bitch:

And I will say this clearly:

Because she is white, and white people have made a society-wide pattern of co-opting Black fashion, bodies, etc. since time immemorial. It’s taking on and immersing oneself in the “fun” aspects of Black culture without also taking on the pain and suffering that they’ve endured at the hands of white people since, well,…

No, actually, it isn’t the point. Intent is not more important than impact. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I’m aware that she probably didn’t know better and I don’t think she should be crucified for it, but I actually don’t give two shits about her either way. It’s the people trying to rationalize…

I don’t care if she put a lot of thought into it because that’s really not the point?

I will repeat what I wrote upthread:

“Cornel.”

I honestly don’t think the Oakland thing is that bad. At some point, we have to realize that certain things are thrown around proudly by POC that are not owned by them and that are often used as ways to be inclusive towards people who are not POC. The one thought coming to my head is someone like Cornell West calling…

GG Spoiler Ahead (It’s been like 4 years you should know by now)

But Baby Got Back, as stupid and sexist as it was , had a definite point of view about praising black women’s bodies, especially in light of the fact that they were/are often disparaged by fashion magazines (“so Cosmo says you’re fat”). As someone who absolutely fits the standard for those types of magazines, I think…