Azealia Banks owns the skull of a six-year-old girl

[Runway 27,876]

I hope they investigate the cause of death of said child because this is disturbing 

[Schizophonic 5,196]

i have the feeling she took a too hot bath and cooked herself a bit too much. 

 

[Esteban 2,294]

My grandfather was teacher and had a full skeleton and a skull, I used to play with when I was child so I don't see it as something disturbing in theory. Sacred maybe, strange for sure but I like it as a piece of art, a relic, a part of history. I think my love for anthropology, biology and ocultism (from a theological, literary and philosophical point of view) come from my fascination for skulls and skeletons that's why I have a curiosity cabinet with "called creepy" stuff including human skull, bat skeleton, goat skull, snakes, spiders and tattoed pig foot stored in jars of formalin, insects into resin....
So I should understand her BUT she seems into it like 100% literally... and the way she talks and acts about it is maybe alarming. With the adition of all her other stuff I think she has serious issues and I hope she'll be better !

[erfaan 2,528]

Tbh she has a point. You literally can buy taxidermy animals and real human bones in a shop in the CBD of San Francisco. How is this any different?

Although, I do admit posting a video of her going through with the process wasn't the best idea. She clearly was either not in the right state of mind or wanted attention (stir the pot, quite literally....)

[StrawberryBlond 13,285]

28 minutes ago, Sebs said:

I don't want to be that girl but I'll be that girl. Honestly most of the confusion around Azealia's recent stuff is because of ignorance. She practices Santeria, and in Santeria (like in other african-carribean/haitian/ecc religions) worshipping and working with the dead is a very important part of spirituality. The things with her dead cat or also with the skull of the little girl (not even sure if it's real or she just said it for shock factor) may seem weird from a western point of view but it's actually sacred.

She claimed that she killed those chickens because her religion involves animal sacrifice. Animal sacrifice is generally looked down upon in most of the world and for good reason. I don't think any religion should involve the killing of living things as part of its worship practice. It's not ignorant to think killing anything in the name of religion is wrong especially when it involves the body parts of people who you aren't related to. Most cultures that have traditions for how to deal with their dead involve dead relatives, not buying body parts of people you don't know and displaying them in your home. I somehow doubt these ancient religions did such things.

6 minutes ago, Esteban said:

My grandfather was teacher and had a full skeleton and a skull, I used to play with when I was child so I don't see it as something disturbing in theory. Sacred maybe, strange for sure but I like it as a piece of art, a relic, a part of history. I think my love for anthropology, biology and ocultism (from a theological, literary and philosophical point of view) come from my fascination for skulls and skeletons that's why I have a curiosity cabinet with "called creepy" stuff including human skull, bat skeleton, goat skull, snakes, spiders and tattoed pig foot stored in jars of formalin, insects into resin....
So I should undesrtand her BUT she seems into it like 100% literally... and the way she talks and acts about it is maybe alarming. With the adition of all her other stuff I think she has serious issues and I hope she'll be better !

Having them for scientific purposes is fine, provided consent was given for it. But having them for display purposes when that was a living breathing human once just doesn't sit remotely right with me. Did you get the human skull through your grandfather's work? Because I wouldn't feel comfortable owning such an item if I couldn't be absolutely sure how it came to be in someone's possession and if the dead person knew this was going to happen after they died. I don't get how such intimate things could be sold on to anyone who could desecrate them? If Azealia is the kind of person who boils her own cat and puts its skull on display next to bottles of champagne and perfume bottles in a kitsch display, I don't think that's someone who deserves ownership of a human skull.

2 minutes ago, Earthfan said:

Tbh she has a point. You literally can buy taxidermy animals and real human bones in a shop in the CBD of San Francisco. How is this any different?

Taxidermy is done with the owner's consent and animals aren't our kind so we treat them differently anyway. But seriously, you can buy human bones in a store? Legal or not, that's shady. And just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

[Lighter 15,376]

for once, lemme stand up for this.

 

her bones died from natural causes. can’t say the same for the leathers and furs in yallst houses

[PEZ 5,930]

^^ But we don't know for sure that it was natural causes. "Head trauma" could be caused by anything from an auto accident, to extreme parental abuse, to an accidental self-inflicted gunshot wound (playing with a pistol when they shouldn't have access), to simply tripping and falling.

Tbh I don't feel like judging her rn for being fascinated by bones. I'm mostly just concerned with the ethics of however these remains were procured and then sold to her. There are reputable and less-than-reputable buyers and sellers. But that's not really an "Azealia" discussion, it's a medical ethics and parental/guardian rights & notices discussion, that I don't feel like having on a pop forum

[Esteban 2,294]

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

 

Having them for scientific purposes is fine, provided consent was given for it. But having them for display purposes when that was a living breathing human once just doesn't sit remotely right with me. Did you get the human skull through your grandfather's work? Because I wouldn't feel comfortable owning such an item if I couldn't be absolutely sure how it came to be in someone's possession and if the dead person knew this was going to happen after they died. I don't get how such intimate things could be sold on to anyone who could desecrate them? If Azealia is the kind of person who boils her own cat and puts its skull on display next to bottles of champagne and perfume bottles in a kitsch display, I don't think that's someone who deserves ownership of a human skull.

 

 Back in the days it was common that school teachers had a skeleton and children gave him a name. It was like a modern ritual which participed to demystify death for young people. Now in western societies we live far from death and we hide everything which is linked to. So it leads to fear and taboos, whereas in some places in India people can eat next to corpses.
Keeping a skull doesn't mean it's desacralised, we can celebrate death, play with it like during El Día de Muertos for example. 
In my opinion it's worse to relegate death to something cold, closed and motionless.
Considering the private aspect of it, I don't believe in this kind of superstitions, If I die everybody can take my bones and feast with it  
And to answer your question, I didn't get the skull that my grandfather owned but I bought my own , it's a vanity from the 19th century and it was sold as an old medical item so I believe my seller 

[Squidward T 1,796]

She obviously needs mental help, does anyone around her even care or are they just contributing to this behavior? 

[27monster27 9,475]

I was eating food and with comedic timing my chewing slowed down the moment I saw this thread title.

[Gorehound 2,103]

she probably dug that one up to.

[Hades 27,980]

She's such a flop even the book of dead would fail with her.

 

[AshIey 7,880]

Well this just made me want to never donate my body to science (not including organs).

[Phantomhive 1,870]

I'm starting to think we should stop vilifying the few people that still support her and let them stream her music and buy her nasty ass soaps so she can put food on the table because at this point, I'm fairly certain she's doing whatever she can just to be talked about.

[StrawberryBlond 13,285]

1 hour ago, Esteban said:

 Back in the days it was common that school teachers had a skeleton and children gave him a name. It was like a modern ritual which participed to demystify death for young people. Now in western societies we live far from death and we hide everything which is linked to. So it leads to fear and taboos, whereas in some places in India people can eat next to corpses.
Keeping a skull doesn't mean it's desacralised, we can celebrate death, play with it like during El Día de Muertos for example. 
In my opinion it's worse to relegate death to something cold, closed and motionless.
Considering the private aspect of it, I don't believe in this kind of superstitions, If I die everybody can take my bones and feast with it  
And to answer your question, I didn't get the skull that my grandfather owned but I bought my own , it's a vanity from the 19th century and it was sold as an old medical item so I believe my seller 

Not real skeletons, though? You can still demystify death without putting a dead person in front of you. Death is far from being closed, cold and emotionless. It's because we have so much emotion for the person who died that we're squeamish at the thought of imaging their dead body being dismantled or treated disrespectfully. Plus, we're worried about the hygiene aspect. It's not like you have to be superstitious. It not anything to do with the soul being connected to the body but rather that once you're dead, your body is the last remaining part of you so you want it treated right. If someone buys it, that means they could sell it to someone else or lose it or throw it in the bin. Not something you'd want to imagine happening to your body. The fact it's from the 19th century makes it a bit better, assuming everyone associated with this person is now dead so the skull won't mean anything to anyone. I thought you meant a skull from someone who died a couple years ago or something!