lightthiscandle:

Crowds gather at Cape Kennedy, Florida to watch the launch of Apollo 11, July 16, 1969.

(via lightthiscandle)

il-tenore-regina:

"women didn’t get the right to vote till 1920"

WHITE WOMEN. 

"what?"

WHITE WOMEN.

"what do you mea—?"

WHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITE

WOMEN. 

(via squintyoureyes)

thefemaletyrant:

princessnijireiki:

latinagabi:

saturnsorbit:

Let’s not forget to acknowledge Alexandre Dumas this Black History Month

The writer of two of the most well known stories worldwide, The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo was a black man. 

That’s excellence.

Let’s not forget that he was played on screen by a white man. And the fact that he was black is barely ever mentioned or the book he wrote inspired by his experiences.

Other things not to forget about Alexandre Dumas:

  • chose to take on his slave grandmother’s last name, Dumas, like his father did before him.
  • grew up too poor for formal education, so was largely self-taught, including becoming a prolific reader, multilingual, well-travelled, and a foodie, resulting in his writing both a combination encyclopedia/cookbook (which just— is fucking outrageous to me) AND the adaptation of The Nutcracker on which Tchaikovsky based his ballet
  • he also wrote a LOOOOT of nonfiction and fiction about history, politics, and revolution, bc he was pro-monarchy, but a radical cuss, and that got him in a lot of hot water at home and abroad.
  • even beyond that, he generally put up with a lot of racist bullshit in France, so he went and wrote a novel about colonialism and a BLATANTLY self-insert anti-slavery vigilante hero (which he then cribbed from to write the Count of Monte Cristo, the main character of which, Edmond Dantés, Dumas also based on himself).
  • (…a novel which also features a LOAD of PoC beyond the Count, and at LEAST one queer character, btw, bc EVERY MOVIE ADAPTATION OF ANYTHING BY DUMAS IS A LIE; seriously, at LEAST one of the four Musketeers is Black, y’all.)
  • famously, when some fuckshit or other wanted to come at Dumas with some anti-Black foolishness, Dumas replied, “My father was a mulatto, my grandfather was a Negro, and my great-grandfather a monkey. You see, Sir, my family starts where yours ends.”
  • http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1dpg5Q35q1r5jtugo1_400.jpg
  • for the bicentennial of his birthday, Pres. Jacques Cirac was like, “…sorry about the hella racism,” and had Dumas’s ashes reinterred at the Panthéon of Paris, bc if you’re gonna keep the corpses of the cream of the crop all together, Dumas’s more widely read and translated than literally everybody else.
  • and they are still finding stuff old dude wrote, seriously; like discovering “lost” works as recently as 2002, publishing stuff for the first time as recently as 2005.

ALSO IMPORTANT:

image

image

SWAG

This is IMPORTANT!

(via boppinrobin)

particularscarf:

bacon-radio:

historicaltimes:

Normandy landing that you didnt see. 1944

Red Cross workers.

That is seriously the most badass thing I’ve ever seen.

(via maggiesox)

flutiebear:

archdrude:

The Amazing Connections Between the Inca and Egyptian Cultures 

"The ancient Egyptians (in Africa) and the ancient pre-Incas/Incas (in South America) evolved on opposite sides of the globe and were never in contact.

Yet, both cultures mysteriously possessed the same strikingly identical body of ancient art, architecture, symbolism, mythology and religion.

The Victorian era scholars, faced with this enigma, concluded that both cultures must have been children of the same Golden Age parent civilization, “Atlantis.”

Today, Egyptian/Inca parallels are not only being ignored by American and Western scholars, they’re being suppressed.

Many baffling and unsolved similarities link the ancient Egyptians and the ancient pre-Incas/Incas ― even though both cultures evolved on opposite sides of the planet, separated by oceans” Read More

NO.

NO NO NO NO NO.

For starters, these architectures resemble each other only superficially. Egypt is on a flood plain. Peru is in the Ring of Fire. One area has to worry about floods; the other, earthquakes. Thus their native cultures designed their buildings accordingly, with different shapes, materials, building processes/tools and construction techniques. Only the most superficial gaze sees these stone and adobe constructions and concludes that they’re “eerily similar”, presumably because all stonework is the same? I mean FFS the blocks aren’t even shaped the same or joined in the same patterns, unless you think there’s something spookily similar about people lining stone blocks up into a row, or into pillars with a slab on top.

Secondly, I can’t identify all the sites/artifacts in these pictures, but I see at the very least Qorikancha, Chan Chan, maaaybe Huaca del Sol and what appears to be a skull from the Colca region — meaning that the person who has assembled this photoset has cherry-picked from several hundred miles (and more than a thousand years!) of distinct, disparate archaelogical sites, geographies and culturesof “Pre-Inka” history in order to match a few photos of the Egyptian pyramids, which were built in the same general region. That’s some super-duper disingenuous bullshit right there.

Finally, the Pre-Inka and Inka cultures and dynastic Egyptian mythos and religions are nothing at all alike, unless you’re the sort of person that assumes all religions with multiple gods are the same. Which a lot of Eurocentric Victorians were. 

This photoset and the accompanying article is racist bullshit; it’s the archaeological equivalent saying all brown people look alike because they’re brown. I shouldn’t even be surprised that the article invokes research “suppression” and the concept of Atlantis to explain similarities that don’t even exist, save in a racist’s mind’s eye.

(via rubyvroom)

ricktimus:

Neil deGrasse Tyson is not impressed with all your sexism.

And the women weren’t named here either? That … that is happening a lot on and around Cosmos.

(via readwatchnaprepeat)

sorry to hijack to add content, but i want to be sure that TS picks these up since my tags grew unwieldy: 
tw: racism, tw: white supremacy, tw: genocide, cw: hiroshima, cw: atomic bomb
pitchercries:

callingoutbigotry:

fuckingrapeculture:

[“White Is”Preston Wilcox, EditorIllustrations by Sandy HuffakerWhite is dropping the H-bomb on the Japanese and not on the Germans.]
thegreatnessideserve:

dionysias:

thestraggletag:

lediableaquatre:

ughsocialjustice:

eccentricsage:

ragingconservative007:

springfi3ld:

collowrath:

bbowelmovements:

thisiswhiteculture:

doyayoda:

damn

yup. this about sums it up

Yes, exactly! It wasn’t because America planned to bomb Germany but then Germany surrendered, making Japan the greatest threat towards ending the war. It wasn’t because America wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor. It wasn’t because there were still many American troops in Germany. And Germany DEFINITELY hadn’t been bombed (not atomic/nuclear, but still bombed) numerous times previously in the war by the UK and America. It was because the evil white people decided to further oppress the poor, marginalized people of color. I’m so glad tumblr taught me this useful information, I can just forget everything I’ve learned in history class and ignore all of the facts and information concerning the event. What an educational and inspiring post.
[AKA nonsense]

[nonsense]

[ableist nonsense]

^^^^^

[no understanding of what racism actually is nonsense]

[nonsense]

[ableist nonsense]

[no knowledge of history nonsense]

[nonsense]

Okay kids, gather round because you seem to be under the impression that this website owes you an education AND that your education on this subject is sufficient. Neither of those is true, but I’m gonna help you out anyway!
First, let’s discuss the “reasons for dropping the bomb” that are commonly given, but also happen to be totally wrong:
Japan wasn’t willing to surrender
Actually, Japan was totally down to surrender! America was very good at cracking Japanese codes, and had intercepted several diplomatic messages sent to other countries where Japan expressed the terms of their conditions, with the only major term being that the emperor remain in power (Which would have been necessary to ensure a peaceful transition to foreign government for the Japanese people). Harry Truman ignored these messages and prolonged the war until the completion of the atomic bomb so that it could be used. More on that later.

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China’s] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union …
In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.


It would have saved more lives than it took
Nah. Japan was actually on it’s last legs, and wouldn’t have been able to fight much longer at all, thanks to effective embargoes, blockades, and traditional bombing. They had all but run out of fuel, ammunition, and other war supplies.

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.


Destroying two major military targets helped us out
LOL Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren’t selected because they were military targets (Because they weren’t military targets at all!). They were selected because they were large cities where the bombs would have the most devastating affect.

President Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it “saved millions of lives” by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.”
This was a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population.”
General George Marshall agreed:
Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”
As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns  … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.

Now, let’s discuss the the actual reasons for dropping the bomb:
To send a message to the Soviet Union
That’s it
It was strictly political

History.com notes:
By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.
New Scientist reportedin 2005:

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 wasmeant to kick-start the Cold Warrather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.
Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago wasdone more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.
New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.
According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.
“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.



So let’s recap:
Harry Truman purposely killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to make a political statement.
The US detonated the world’s first weapon of mass destruction simply to send a message to the Soviet Union and stop Red expansion into Asia.
I’m not saying the fact that one group of people (Who happened to be Asian) was viewed as disposable just to put on a show for another group of people (Who happened to also be white) is an act of racism.
I’m also not saying that we should examine the fact that no German or Italian families living in the US were put into containment camps out of fear of spies, but pretty much all Asian-Americans were (Because Asia is a country, obviously).
I AM saying that maybe you should consider that your history lessons in school were taught from books written by old white men, and they might read a little differently if they weren’t. 
Oh, and I’ll leave on this little note from President Truman’s youth. Again, I’m not saying he’s racist or anything, but…

In Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Bomb, Japanese American historian Ronald Takaki writes about the man who made the final decision to destroy two Japanese cities, President Harry Truman. This was the same man who, when he was younger, wrote the following in a letter to his future wife, Bess:I think one man is as good as another, so long as he’s honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. My uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man of dust, a nigger from mud, then threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion that negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia, and white men in Europe and America.

Hey look, sources where you can go and educate yourself about all of this, and fact check me while you’re at it!
The REAL Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan (It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives)
forget the whiteness of the bomb


here i fixed some of the earlier comments so that they don’t distract from the huge fuckin’ historically accurate burn at the end 

FOREVER REBLOG the debunking of the popular reasons usually put forth by the US about why it dropped nuclear bombs on Japan. I don’t even care if you subscribe to the theory offered above that it was the opening shot of the cold war, I just want everyone to read + understand that it was absolutely not done to either end the war, take out crucial military targets, or save anyone’s life. 

sorry to hijack to add content, but i want to be sure that TS picks these up since my tags grew unwieldy: 

tw: racism, tw: white supremacy, tw: genocide, cw: hiroshima, cw: atomic bomb

pitchercries:

callingoutbigotry:

fuckingrapeculture:

[“White Is”
Preston Wilcox, Editor
Illustrations by Sandy Huffaker

White is dropping the H-bomb on the Japanese and not on the Germans.]

thegreatnessideserve:

dionysias:

thestraggletag:

lediableaquatre:

ughsocialjustice:

eccentricsage:

ragingconservative007:

springfi3ld:

collowrath:

bbowelmovements:

thisiswhiteculture:

doyayoda:

damn

yup. this about sums it up

Yes, exactly! It wasn’t because America planned to bomb Germany but then Germany surrendered, making Japan the greatest threat towards ending the war. It wasn’t because America wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor. It wasn’t because there were still many American troops in Germany. And Germany DEFINITELY hadn’t been bombed (not atomic/nuclear, but still bombed) numerous times previously in the war by the UK and America. It was because the evil white people decided to further oppress the poor, marginalized people of color. I’m so glad tumblr taught me this useful information, I can just forget everything I’ve learned in history class and ignore all of the facts and information concerning the event. What an educational and inspiring post.

[AKA nonsense]

[nonsense]

[ableist nonsense]

^^^^^

[no understanding of what racism actually is nonsense]

[nonsense]

[ableist nonsense]

[no knowledge of history nonsense]

[nonsense]

Okay kids, gather round because you seem to be under the impression that this website owes you an education AND that your education on this subject is sufficient. Neither of those is true, but I’m gonna help you out anyway!

First, let’s discuss the “reasons for dropping the bomb” that are commonly given, but also happen to be totally wrong:

  • Japan wasn’t willing to surrender

Actually, Japan was totally down to surrender! America was very good at cracking Japanese codes, and had intercepted several diplomatic messages sent to other countries where Japan expressed the terms of their conditions, with the only major term being that the emperor remain in power (Which would have been necessary to ensure a peaceful transition to foreign government for the Japanese people). Harry Truman ignored these messages and prolonged the war until the completion of the atomic bomb so that it could be used. More on that later.

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China’s] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union …

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

  • It would have saved more lives than it took

Nah. Japan was actually on it’s last legs, and wouldn’t have been able to fight much longer at all, thanks to effective embargoes, blockades, and traditional bombing. They had all but run out of fuel, ammunition, and other war supplies.

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

  • Destroying two major military targets helped us out

LOL Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren’t selected because they were military targets (Because they weren’t military targets at all!). They were selected because they were large cities where the bombs would have the most devastating affect.

President Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it “saved millions of lives” by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.”

This was a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population.”

General George Marshall agreed:

Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”

As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns  … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.

Now, let’s discuss the the actual reasons for dropping the bomb:

  • To send a message to the Soviet Union
  • That’s it
  • It was strictly political
History.com notes:

By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.

New Scientist reportedin 2005:

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 wasmeant to kick-start the Cold Warrather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago wasdone more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.

So let’s recap:

Harry Truman purposely killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to make a political statement.

The US detonated the world’s first weapon of mass destruction simply to send a message to the Soviet Union and stop Red expansion into Asia.

I’m not saying the fact that one group of people (Who happened to be Asian) was viewed as disposable just to put on a show for another group of people (Who happened to also be white) is an act of racism.

I’m also not saying that we should examine the fact that no German or Italian families living in the US were put into containment camps out of fear of spies, but pretty much all Asian-Americans were (Because Asia is a country, obviously).

I AM saying that maybe you should consider that your history lessons in school were taught from books written by old white men, and they might read a little differently if they weren’t. 

Oh, and I’ll leave on this little note from President Truman’s youth. Again, I’m not saying he’s racist or anything, but…

In Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Bomb, Japanese American historian Ronald Takaki writes about the man who made the final decision to destroy two Japanese cities, President Harry Truman. This was the same man who, when he was younger, wrote the following in a letter to his future wife, Bess:

I think one man is as good as another, so long as he’s honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. My uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man of dust, a nigger from mud, then threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion that negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia, and white men in Europe and America.

Hey look, sources where you can go and educate yourself about all of this, and fact check me while you’re at it!

here i fixed some of the earlier comments so that they don’t distract from the huge fuckin’ historically accurate burn at the end 

FOREVER REBLOG the debunking of the popular reasons usually put forth by the US about why it dropped nuclear bombs on Japan. I don’t even care if you subscribe to the theory offered above that it was the opening shot of the cold war, I just want everyone to read + understand that it was absolutely not done to either end the war, take out crucial military targets, or save anyone’s life. 

(via spaceshipmatria)

americangothgirl:

During WWII, Irena got permission to work in the Warsaw ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist. She had an ulterior motive.

Irena smuggled Jewish infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried. She also carried a burlap sack in the back of her truck, for larger kids.

Irena kept a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers, of course, wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.

During her time of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants. Ultimately, she was caught, however, and the Nazi’s broke both of her legs and arms and beat her severely.

Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she had smuggled out, In a glass jar that she buried under a tree in her back yard. After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived and tried to reunite the family. Most had been gassed. Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes or adopted.

In 2007 Irena was up for the Nobel Peace Prize. 
She was not selected. 
Al Gore won, for a slide show on Global Warming.

(via ndnickerson)

paradelle:

jhameia:

seekingwillow:

femifeisty:

iammorethan-him:

feministcaptainkirk:

thenameisroxylalonde:

erenjaqers:

ofbullets:

wtf-mcr:

ofbullets:

name 1 bad thing canada has done

Bieber

We’re really sorry bout that

Also, the Genocide of it’s Native people.

Also Japanese internment camps sorry.

also denying Jewish people fleeing the Holocaust safe asylum 

__

Destroying/demolishing Black neighbourhoods, thus destroying their history, and putting baseball fields over dug up Black cemeteries.

Sent body bags to indigenous reservations during a flu outbreak instead of disinfecting alcohol because “they’ll abuse it”

this thread is such a fucking tragedy

the original post is one of the constant many examples of common place historical amnesia among canadians, a result of our whitewashed, censored education

people truly believe the worst to come out of this slavery-condoning, genocide-committing, dictator-propping, massively polluting country is a 17-year old trashy pop star

and no one ever realizes how much this god-awful country supports the settler colonialism of israel and continued economic support of the British Dominion as our crooked politicans gave “anti-apartheid” mouthservice to Nelson Mandela in 1993

no, what they teach you in high school history classes is how much of a global leader canada was in the mid-20th century because Lester  Pearson sent a bunch of combatants to be military “peacekeepers” starting with the British & French-backed Israeli invasion of Suez in Egypt.

and this is SO INGRAINED in our national consciousness and identity-oriented policies that our very own UN head of the Canadian branch says lies like

which is taught in our high school curriculum and gives rise to teenage idiots like above truly believing in our white liberal myths of inherent good will, whose worst crime is to give the world justin fucking bieber
and i GUARANTEE you that 99% of this contry’s populace knows what “peacekeeping” is but ask them about the Somali Affair and they’ll draw complete fucking blanks

(via miraculous)

ahkep:

actionables:

the past is a strange place

cops on bikes used to transport criminals like this

image

this guy worked as an alarm for waking people up

image

one wheel motorcycle

image

pin-boys who manually lined pins up

image

baby cage for families who wanted their kids to get enough sunlight

image

zoo-keeper showering a penguin

image

But who woke up the guy that woke everyone else up

(via ndnickerson)

Q

timballisto asked:

I'm writing a paper about the internalized racism in Shakespeare's Othello. Do you have any good sources about the Elizabethan interactions with people of color that can give me some context for this play? I asked my professor but he gave me the "there were no african peoples (Moors or otherwise) in England in this time period" spiel, but I'm sensing bullshit. Thank you!

A

medievalpoc:

Uhhhhh.

Okay well your professor lied to you.

Actually there were so many Black British at that time that Elizabeth I tried to blame the realms ills on them and have them all deported. Twice. She failed, probably because you can’t deport your own citizens very well under most circumstances. It’s actually a pretty pivotal point in English history.

Here’s one of the letters from her own hand:

image

[transcript]

An open le[tt]re to the L[ord] Maiour of London and th’alermen his brethren, And to all other Maiours, Sheryfes, &c. Her Ma[jes]tieunderstanding that there are of late divers Blackmoores brought into the Realme, of which kinde of people there are all ready here to manie,consideringe howe God hath blessed this land w[i]th great increase of people of our owne Nation as anie Countrie in the world, wherof manie for want of Service and meanes to sett them on worck fall to Idlenesse and to great extremytie; Her Ma[jesty’]s pleasure therefore ys, that those kinde of people should be sent forthe of the lande. And for that purpose there ys direction given to this bearer Edwarde Banes to take of those Blackmoores that in this last voyage under Sir Thomas Baskervile, were brought into this Realme to the nomber of Tenn, to be Transported by him out of the Realme. Wherein wee Req[uire] you to be aydinge & Assysting unto him as he shall have occacion, and thereof not to faile.

You can read another one in its entirety here.

Elizabeth I tried to use Black British as scapegoats for some of the problems in English society during the Elizabethan Era, problems that led to the passing of the famous Poor Laws in 1597 and 1601.

From The British National Archives:

But while Elizabeth may have enjoyed being entertained by Black people, in the 1590s she also issued proclamations against them. In 1596 she wrote to the lord mayors of major cities noting that there were ‘of late divers blackmoores brought into this realm, of which kind of people there are already here to manie…’. She ordered that ‘those kinde of people should be sente forth of the land’.

Elizabeth made an arrangement for a merchant, Casper van Senden, to deport Black people from England in 1596. The aim seems to have been to exchange them for (or perhaps to sell them to obtain funds to buy) English prisoners held by England’s Catholic enemies Spain and Portugal.

No doubt van Senden intended to sell these people. But this was not to be, because masters* of Black workers - who had not been offered compensation - refused to let them go. In 1601, Elizabeth issued a further proclamation expressing her ‘discontentment by the numbers of blackamores which are crept into this realm…’ and again licensing van Senden to deport Black people. It is doubtful whether this second proclamation was any more successful than the first.

Why this sudden, urgent desire to expel members of England’s Black population? It was more than a commercial transaction pursued by the queen. In the 16th century, the ruling classes became increasingly concerned about poverty and vagrancy, as the feudal system- which, in theory, had kept everyone in their place - finally broke down. They feared disorder and social breakdown and, blaming the poor, brought in poor laws to try to deal with the problem

As you can see, Black people were a pretty important and pivotal part of English society at the time. Basically, the Queen tried to convince the people that they had to “give up” their cobbler’s apprentices and weavers and other various other workingpeople (the Black musicians in the court were of course exempt from the deportations) to the crown, on the basis that they were “vagrants” and “mostly infidels”. This was not only a wild exaggeration (most were Christian with working class jobs like ya do), but it’s not a very compelling reason to frigging report your next-door neighbor Bill the Mason to immigration. Because then who’s going to do your masonry?

So anyways, the Poor Laws had to be passed, because you can’t deport your citizens/workforce and no one would cooperate with something like that.

And it’s not like those people went anywhere. They’re still there. They were there before that! Some had been there since like, the 4th frigging century when that was part of the Roman Empire!

Also check the tag for England here. Plenty more on lots of different people of color in England throughout many eras.

* this generally refers to the “master” of a workshop or guildmaster, not necessarily the master of an enslaved person, FYI.

oh my god how is this something i never learned about in three separate elizabethan era-focused classes??? (no need to answer; i know how) 

madamethursday:

[Image: A late 1800’s photograph in sepia tones showing Mary Bowser, a Black woman wearing a dress from that period and holding a closed umbrella almost like a cane, looking straight ahead.]
everythingsbetterwithbisexuals:

lucymontero:

lexkixass:

mooglemisbehaving:

gogogadgetgoatkins:

Mary Bowser, former slave of the Van Lew family, infiltrated the Confederacy by working as a servant in the household of Jefferson Davis. Bowser was assumed to be illiterate, and as a black woman was below suspicion. Practically invisible, she was able to listen to conversations between Confederate officials and read sensitive documents, gathering information that she handed over to the Union.
(From National Woman’s History Museum Facebook Page)

This needs to be a movie. Like, now.

I’d watch this movie.

How is this not a movie?

*throws money at Hollywood*

madamethursday:

[Image: A late 1800’s photograph in sepia tones showing Mary Bowser, a Black woman wearing a dress from that period and holding a closed umbrella almost like a cane, looking straight ahead.]

everythingsbetterwithbisexuals:

lucymontero:

lexkixass:

mooglemisbehaving:

gogogadgetgoatkins:

Mary Bowser, former slave of the Van Lew family, infiltrated the Confederacy by working as a servant in the household of Jefferson Davis. Bowser was assumed to be illiterate, and as a black woman was below suspicion. Practically invisible, she was able to listen to conversations between Confederate officials and read sensitive documents, gathering information that she handed over to the Union.

(From National Woman’s History Museum Facebook Page)

This needs to be a movie. Like, now.

I’d watch this movie.

How is this not a movie?

*throws money at Hollywood*

(via tasteslikefail)

oh just watching this episode of breaking barriers and going full tina belcher on footage of young edward james olmos

okay but if you get it on your pbs it’s also a REALLY great series about television history but also: young edward james olmos *_*

usagov:

Image description:

From the National Archives:

"Negro sailors of the USS MASON commissioned at Boston Navy Yard 20 March 1944 proudly look over their ship which is first to have predominantly Negro crew."

From the series: General Photographic File of the Department of Navy, 1943 - 1958

The USS Mason was one of only two ships during World War II with predominately African American crews.  The experiences of the USS Mason’s crew would later be dramatized in the film Proud (2004).

More images of the USS Mason and her crew at the U.S. Navy’s History and Heritage site.