That's not at all what I think the message is saying. I completely agree with you about the nature, ie that its referencing the relationship between blacks and cops, but I don't agree at all that the message was "we black people need to protect ourselves because cops won't," or that "we black people need to protect ourselves against the police."

As I said, the interpretation that I took was unifying in nature, not divisive. The "we" is all Americans, including whites, and including good cops.

It would make little sense to have a panel on a poster that was about blacks protecting blacks, yet include it in a poster with two non black people, and using the phrase "protect each other" rather than "protect ourselves."

Maybe you weren't saying as much, but that's how I'm reading you. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Ok, I think I didn't fully get your interpretation first time around. But I think mine is the correct interpretation, given the context. These are parts of a series in defense of those individuals, in response to specific perceived insults. They're advocating for themselves, in other words, for their particularly problematic issues in the coming age of Trump, as perceived by the artist. The Muslim poster is a direct response to Trump's vilification of Muslims as a group; the Mexican poster is a direct response to the characterization of illegal Mexican immigrants as rapists and murderers. What, specifically, is the young black person's issue, in the year of #blacklivesmatter and the election of Law and Order President Trump? It only makes sense that the message is a direct response to a direct threat that is specific to that individual's group.

The series is to be taken together as marginalized people standing up for themselves, and for each other, but each had a message specific to their own marginalized group. The narrative for young black men (I think that's a male) is that they live in fear of violence from police in the setting of institutionalized racism. The message Fairey chose fits squarely into that perception, and that interpretation of that piece fits squarely into the series.

At least, that's my take on it, and you should know by now, my take is usually the correct one.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Yes, I agree that the message is specific to the marginalized group.

I believe the message is meant for a larger "we" to stand up for these marginalized groups. I could be wrong.


Well that goes without saying. =P

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I have heard Muslim women talk of wearing the hijab as an assertion that they are person not sexual objects. For them it is a statement about modesty. The other things as you bring up with nuns is head coverings are not exclusively Muslim I think in some countries Christian women have a head covering as well. I don't think it is that radical seeing what Hollywood and those who want to sell us things portray women as. We have all sorts of girls with body perception issues feeling unworthy because they don't stack up. The hijab seems different from the burka. The face covering seeming depersonalizing.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

surely he wouldn't object to this

I actually think it was exactly something like that when I first saw him go off about it.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.