note-a-bear:

mxtori:

thepeoplesrecord:

socialismartnature:

South Carolina Mother Jailed Because She Let Her 9-Year-Old Daughter Play in the Park Unsupervised

Here are the facts: Debra Harrell works at McDonald’s in North Augusta, South Carolina. For most of the summer, her daughter had stayed there with her, playing on a laptop that Harrell had scrounged up the money to purchase. (McDonald’s has free WiFi.) Sadly, the Harrell home was robbed and the laptop stolen, so the girl asked her mother if she could be dropped off at the park to play instead.

Harrell said yes. She gave her daughter a cell phone. The girl went to the park—a place so popular that at any given time there are about 40 kids frolicking—two days in a row. There were swings, a “splash pad,” and shade. On her third day at the park, an adult asked the girl where her mother was. At work, the daughter replied.

The shocked adult called the cops. Authorities declared the girl “abandoned” and proceeded to arrest the mother.

Direct source: http://www.wjbf.com/story/25915218/north-augusta-mother-charged-with-unlawful-conduct-towards-a-child

===

The war on working class Black women in the U.S. continues apace. This time, a mother of a 9-year old child is arrested and jailed for the “crime” of dropping her daughter off at the park to play with other children while she had to go to work at a minimum wage job at McDonald’s (which fittingly happens to be located inside a WalMart).

Now the woman’s poor child is in the hands of the South Carolina state authorities [a state which STILL proudly flies the Confederate Flag at its Capitol building].

The irony is that the justification employed by state officials is that the mother put the child at risk by leaving her in the park where some random strangers might have just come along and kidnapped her child. As it turns out, that is exactly what happened, but the kidnappers were the police! They came along and snatched this woman’s child and now she risks losing her daughter forever!

No justice, no peace

Do you know how many times my ass stayed at the park or library after school till my mom got off work? This is bullshit pure and simple.

Edit: AND I AIN’T EVEN GET A CELLPHONE!

…..remember that whole thing of “kids don’t go outside anymore. They don’t go to the park” hmmmmm

(via rubyvroom)

ndnickerson:

fantastic-nonsense:

il-tenore-regina:

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

WHITE WOMEN. 

"what?"

WHITE WOMEN.

"what do you mea—?"

WHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITE

WOMEN. 

This is completely false? Like no? Male Suffrage happened in 1870, Female Suffrage in 1920. Universal male suffrage was already a thing because of the 15th Amendment, and universal female suffrage was established in 1920 with the 19th Amendment.

Maybe this is the context for the original post:

Although in the United States African Americans were granted the rights of citizens, including suffrage, by constitutional amendments following the American Civil War, later in the century white Democrats had regained control in all states of the former Confederacy in the American South. From 1890 to 1910 they passed new constitutions, laws or constitutional amendments establishing barriers to voter registration and, later, voting, that essentially disfranchised most African Americans. They mounted legal challenges, but did not fully regain the ability to exercise their rights until after passage in the mid-1960s of the Voting Rights Act, which provided federal protection and enforcement. This was a result of their activism in the Civil Rights Movement.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

ding ding ding ding

People seeing this might also note that a recent SCOTUS decision held that a big part of the Voting Rights Act (that ensures that jurisdictions with historical “difficulties” actually allowing people of color to vote are subject to federal oversight to make sure they don’t keep doing that) was basically struck down last year, and the actual practice of redistricting; restricting voting days, times, and polling locations; and voter ID laws STILL IN THIS THE YEAR 2014 PREVENT PEOPLE OF COLOR AND THOSE OF LOWER ECONOMIC CLASSES FROM VOTING IN ELECTIONS.

Universal suffrage in the United Sates is about as universal as my ass, which may be substantial but still only goes so far.

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)

the problem

  • fanwriter: *racebends classic character*
  • white dudes: UGH NO CANONICALLY WHITE CHARACTERS MUST BE WHITE FOREVER
  • fanwriter: *genderflips classic character*
  • white dudes: GENDER ROLES EXIST FOR A REASON NOPE NOPE NOPE
  • fanwriter: *creates a queer headcanon*
  • white dudes: GROSS WHAT THE FUCK NO HOMO
  • professional writer: *creates original narrative featuring prominent female, POC and/or queer characters*
  • white dudes: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS MAKES EVERYTHING WORSE, NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR ISSUES
  • professional writer: *tells true story featuring prominent female, POC and/or queer characters*
  • white dudes: STOP PUSHING YOUR POLITICAL AGENDA DOWN OUR THROATS
  • feminism: *points out the overwhelming number of straight white male protagonists and creators, argues in favour of diversity*
  • white dudes: WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU COMPLAINING, IF YOU WANT TO SEE THAT SORT OF THING, JUST MAKE IT YOURSELVES, IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S HARD OR ANYTHING JFC
  • literally everyone: ...

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)

roachpatrol:

the boys who use superheroes to propagate and enforce oppressive racial and sexual narratives—even the writers—aren’t real fans. they’re usurpers. they’ve betrayed what these characters stand for and why they were created. Superheroes were dreamed up and drawn by kids who had to change their fucking names to be fit for print, you think a guy named Jacob Kurtzburg is going to agree with you that Spiderman can’t be a minority because it isn’t true to the character? You think William Marston is gonna rise from his kinked-up polyamorous female supremacist grave and like your post about how Gail Simone would be better employed bringing your nasty ass a sandwich?

Get the fuck out of my face. I’m not the fake fan here. I’m not the poison ruining comics. You are. Superheroes are our dream. Get out. 

(via boppinrobin)

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)

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)

NBA commissioner Adam Silver banned Donald Sterling for life. Do you think if an NFL owner made similar comments, would commissioner Roger Goodell react in the same way, and do you think an owner would be banned for life?

No I don’t. Because we have an NFL team called the Redskins. I don’t think the NFL really is as concerned as they show. The NFL is more of a bottom line league. If it doesn’t affect their bottom line, they’re not as concerned.”
— Richard Sherman in Time (x)

shinykari:

Wow. Just… wow.

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) 

letsreadsomeinternet:

Look, I didn’t join in #CancelColbert. I thought the original tweet from the Colbert show was disgusting, discouraging, and disappointing, but I came to the conclusion that I didn’t believe Colbert’s show should be cancelled, so I refrained from participating in…