Skip to main content

making faces :: this one's for you, america

yes, today i did a special "american election look", something i hope i don't regret later on...

first up, there's the obligatory red, white and blue.


that's a bright, bold red because what is america if not bold and brash? [guerlain rouge parade]


and that's some white, which is for the stars in your flag, but also for the suffragettes who fought for women's right to vote a hundred years ago. but there's black too, because black lives matter and the experience of blacks in america is an intrinsic part of who america is. [skirt annie thompson]


and some blue in both the camisole and the earrings [although i grant that the earrings don't really register. it's a dark blue, because let's face it: you know i'm hoping that's what your electoral map is going to look like tomorrow. [earrings joe fresh, camisole h+m]

but that's not all there is...




that's a nice helping of purple, in honour of all those purple states that are going to be deciding this election. [nars demon lover]


some flat, comfortable shoes for standing in line at the voting locations, or for marching on washington if these numbskulls don't work hard enough at making things better. [shoes john fluevog]



and finally, yes, that is a rosary slung round my erstwhile agnostic neck, because tonight requires a couple of prayers, and because i think that the pope has had some very insightful comments about americans' tendency to pick and choose parts of the bible that inform their faith. 

but there's more to it than that: i bought that rosary at the cathedral of notre dame de paris. france, like you guys, adopted the red, white and blue as their colours, just a few years after your revolution. and they assigned meanings to those colours: white for the clergy, blue for the bourgeoisie, red for the nobility, because everyone was supposed to work together. but the three colours have also become associated with the three objectives of their revolution: liberty, equality, fraternity. ["equality", by the way, meant equality of opportunity, not of result.] that spirit of togetherness had some rough times, to the point where different factions would just claim their own part of it and fly flags of one of the three colours, but never the other two. the flag, and the country, got torn apart and put back together for some time. 

after today's exercise in electoral liberty, which is the one truly equal process in a modern democracy- one person, one vote- things will change. it's impossible not to notice that things in america have become heated and angry and divided, but here's hoping that, in the wake of what's been an ugly, dispiriting and downright frightening campaign, you can all pull together in that spirit of fraternity the french were so big on. 

Comments

SoSuSam said…
Thank you for celebrating our election sartorially and cosmetically. As you now know, the blue in your outfit and earrings was not particularly reflected in our electoral map. Like, barely at all. And the red that sprawled across the map wasn't the bright, bold rouge of your Guerlain, but rather the bumpy irritation of some kind of rash you'd rather not admit, even to a doctor, you have. (Not you! But, er, someone who's been hanging out with the wrong crowd *cough* Trump.) Well, here's to the U.S. someday regaining the diversity and spirit you embraced in your outfit. :) For now, I'm going to take a page from the French book of separatism and hang a blue-only flag from my window.
Kate MacDonald said…
Wow. I am very honoured to have inspired you :-)

The election night was flat-out painful for me, even though it's not my country, because, as a woman, I'd like to think that a man who's shown a pattern of disrespect, a man about to go to court for raping a thirteen year-old girl, would be unacceptable as a candidate. Not so.

Now I just have to think of a makeup look that encompasses hope and the struggle for something better...
SoSuSam said…
Ah...I wrote a long response to your comment, which Blogger ate. Maybe that's for the best. So I'll just say two things: First, I look forward to your look encompassing "hope and the struggle for something better." Second, I feel your pain (as HRC's hubby used to say) over DT's election, and am heartbroken that 53% of American white women voted for him. How could they? (I am one; but I certainly didn't tick the box for him.) Not only is his lack of respect (such a gracious way of putting it!) for women appalling, his running mate's radically conservative views are going to turn back the clock in terms of women's rights--and human rights overall. It's going to be a very ugly 4 years, with repercussions that last for decades. Not to mention the repercussions we're feeling here already in the form of escalating violence toward minorities of every stripe. Hmmm...this didn't end up being a short rant after all! Sorry...

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …