#historians who take no bs

[jurijurijurious]

#sensible chuckle time? #historians who take no bs #estelle paranque #catherine de medici #the serpent queen

[qqueenofhades]

Hello! This is kind of a weird ask, I'm sorry to bother you, but seeing as you're a very intelligent studied historian that I deeply respect, I was hoping you could offer some advice? Or like, things i could read? Lately, i feel like my critical thinking skills are emaciated and its scaring the shit out of me. I feel very slow and like I'm constantly missing important info in relation to news/history/social activism stuff. Thats so vague, sorry, but like any tips on how i can do better?

Aha, thank you. There was recently a good critical-thinking infograph on my dash, so obviously I thought I remembered who reblogged it and checked their blog, it wasn't them, thought it was someone else, checked their blog, it also wasn't them, and now I can't find it to link to. Alas. But I will try to sum up its main points and add a few of my own. I'm glad you're taking the initiative to work on this for yourself, and I will add that while it can seem difficult and overwhelming to sort through the mass of information, especially often-false, deliberately misleading, or otherwise bad information, there are a few tips to help you make some headway, and it's a skill that like any other skill, gets easier with practice. So yes.

The first and most general rule of thumb I would advise is the same thing that IT/computer people tell you about scam emails. If something is written in a way that induces urgency, panic, the feeling that you need to do something RIGHT NOW, or other guilt-tripping or anxiety-inducing language, it is -- to say the least -- questionable. This goes double if it's from anonymous unsourced accounts on social media, is topically or thematically related to a major crisis, or anything else. The intent is to create a panic response in you that overrides your critical faculties, your desire to do some basic Googling or double-checking or independent verification of its claims, and makes you think that you have to SHARE IT WITH EVERYONE NOW or you are personally and morally a bad person. Unfortunately, the world is complicated, issues and responses are complicated, and anyone insisting that there is Only One Solution and it's conveniently the one they're peddling should not be trusted. We used to laugh at parents and grandparents for naively forwarding or responding to obviously scam emails, but now young people are doing the exact same thing by blasting people with completely sourceless social media tweets, clips, and other manipulative BS that is intended to appeal to an emotional gut rather than an intellectual response. When you panic or feel negative emotions (anger, fear, grief, etc) you're more likely to act on something or share questionable information without thinking.

Likewise, you do have basic Internet literacy tools at your disposal. You can just throw a few keywords into Google or Wikipedia and see what comes up. Is any major news organization reporting on this? Is it obviously verifiable as a fake (see the disaster pictures of sharks swimming on highways that get shared after every hurricane)? Can you right-click, perform a reverse image search, and see if this is, for example, a picture from an unrelated war ten years ago instead of an up-to-date image of the current conflict? Especially with the ongoing Israel/Palestine imbroglio, we have people sharing propaganda (particularly Hamas propaganda) BY THE BUCKETLOAD and masquerading it as legitimate news organizations (tip: Quds News Network is literally the Hamas channel). This includes other scuzzy dirtbag-left websites like Grayzone and The Intercept, which often have implicit or explicit links to Russian-funded disinformation campaigns and other demoralizing or disrupting fake news that is deliberately designed to turn young left-leaning Westerners against the Democrats and other liberal political parties, which enables the electoral victory of the fascist far-right and feeds Putin's geopolitical and military aims. Likewise, half of our problems would be solved if tankies weren't so eager to gulp down and propagate anything "anti-Western" and thus amplify the Russian disinformation machine in a way even the Russians themselves sometimes struggle to do, but yeah. That relates to both Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Palestine.

Basically: TikTok, Twitter/X, Tumblr itself, and other platforms are absolutely RIFE with misinformation, and this is due partly to ownership (the Chinese government and Elon Fucking Musk have literally no goddamn reason whatsoever to build an unbiased algorithm, and have been repeatedly proven to be boosting bullshit that supports their particular worldviews) and partly due to the way in which the young Western left has paralyzed itself into hypocritical moral absolutes and pseudo-revolutionary ideology (which is only against the West itself and doesn't think that the rest of the world has agency to act or think for itself outside the West's influence, They Are Very Smart and Anti-Colonialist!) A lot of "information" in left-leaning social media spaces is therefore tainted by this perspective and often relies on flat-out, brazen, easily disprovable lies (like the popular Twitter account insisting that Biden could literally just overturn the Supreme Court if he really wanted to). Not all misinformation is that easy to spot, but with a severe lack of political, historical, civic, or social education (since it's become so polarized and school districts generally steer away from it or teach the watered-down version for fear of being attacked by Moms for Liberty or similar), it is quickly and easily passed along by people wanting trite and simplistic solutions for complex problems or who think the extent of social justice is posting the Right Opinions on social media.

As I said above, everything in the world is complicated and has multiple factors, different influences, possible solutions, involved actors, and external and internal causes. For the most part, if you're encountering anything that insists there's only one shiningly righteous answer (which conveniently is the one All Good and Moral People support!) and the other side is utterly and even demonically in the wrong, that is something that immediately needs a closer look and healthy skepticism. How was this situation created? Who has an interest in either maintaining the status quo, discouraging any change, or insisting that there's only one way to engage with/think about this issue? Who is being harmed and who is being helped by this rhetoric, including and especially when you yourself are encouraged to immediately spread it without criticism or cross-checking? Does it rely on obvious lies, ideological misinformation, or something designed to make you feel the aforementioned negative emotions? Is it independently corroborated? Where is it sourced from? When you put the author's name into Google, what comes up?

Also, I think it's important to add that as a result, it's simply not possible to distill complicated information into a few bite-sized and easily digestible social media chunks. If something is difficult to understand, that means you probably need to spend more time reading about it and encountering diverse perspectives, and that is research and work that has to take place primarily not on social media. You can ask for help and resources (such as you're doing right now, which I think is great!), but you can't use it as your chief or only source of information. You can and should obviously be aware of the limitations and biases of traditional media, but often that has turned into the conspiracy-theory "they never report on what's REALLY GOING ON, the only information you can trust is random anonymous social media accounts managed by God knows who." Traditional media, for better or worse, does have certain evidentiary standards, photographing, sourcing, and verifying requirements, and other ways to confirm that what they're writing about actually has some correspondence with reality. Yes, you need to be skeptical, but you can also trust that some of the initial legwork of verification has been done for you, and you can then move to more nuanced review, such as wording, presentation of perspective, who they're interviewing, any journalistic assumptions, any organizational shortcomings, etc.

Once again: there is a shit-ton of stuff out there, it is hard to instinctively know or understand how to engage with it, and it's okay if you don't automatically "get" everything you read. That's where the principle of actually taking the time to be informed comes in, and why you have to firmly divorce yourself from the notion that being socially aware or informed means just instantly posting or sharing on social media about the crisis of the week, especially if you didn't know anything about it beforehand and are just relying on the Leftist Groupthink to tell you how you should be reacting. Because things are complicated and dangerous, they take more effort to unpick than just instantly sharing a meme or random Twitter video or whatever. If you do in fact want to talk about these things constructively, and not just because you feel like you're peer-pressured into doing so and performing the Correct Opinions, then you will in fact need to spend non-social-media time and effort in learning about them.

If you're at a university, there are often subject catalogues, reference librarians, and other built-in tools that are there for you to use and which you SHOULD use (that's your tuition money, after all). That can help you identify trustworthy information sources and research best practices, and as you do that more often, it will help you have more of a feel for things when you encounter them in the wild. It's not easy at first, but once you get the hang of it, it becomes more so, and will make you more confident in your own judgments, beliefs, and values. That way when you encounter something that you KNOW is wrong, you won't be automatically pressured to share it just to fit in, because you will be able to tell yourself what the problems are.

Good luck!

#coffeeandcoyotes #ask #school stuff #critical thinking

[a-very-tired-jew]

Let's Talk Expertise

This will anger some people, like my age post did, but it also needs to be said and is about something I have been seeing consistently. If you are in your undergrad and taking major courses, you are not an expert on the subject material, let alone the profession itself. You are a student who is just building their foundational knowledge for your chosen field. You have not accumulated enough knowledge on the subject matter to speak from a place of expertise, nor have you learned enough to parse through the nuance of your chosen field or reached any of the milestones to be considered as such. There's a reason why we actually have an expertise system here in the USA that is paired with the legal system and our government employment system. If you go onto a government job site and look at their listings you will see some combination of Degree, Degree + Experience, Degree + Equivalent Experience and Amount of Time. What does this mean? It means that if a job is asking for someone with a Master's degree in a specific field they will consider individuals with the appropriate degree, but they will also consider people with a Bachelor's degree and the equivalent amount of time and/or experience in their field that makes them as knowledgeable as the MS candidate. The reason for the Time/Experience component is that not everyone pursues a graduate degree, but that does not mean they lack the knowledge required. However, there is an equivalency in Time/Experience to those graduate degrees and the special knowledge they impart. This gets even more complicated in higher levels when a position is asking for a PhD + 10 years of experience, that means a BS might be right out unless they have 20+ years of experience and an MS might need 15-20 years alone. In my time as a professor I have seen scores of undergrads present themselves as their major professions when they haven't even finished their junior year. Sometimes it's benign so that they can puff up in mixed company. Other times? Not so much. Several years ago I saw an undergrad present themselves as a psychologist that was "recovering traumatic memories" and got a multitude of people falsely accused of various violent crimes. This culminated in several court cases where the student had to admit they were falsely representing themself as an expert and therefore falsely producing "evidence". In light of the ongoing conflict I have seen a number of blogs on here present themselves as historians/experts on various related subject matter, while openly admitting that they are undergrad students and/or do not work in any capacity relating to the material. The latter can be fine up to a point, but if you are not working in your field and it comes to being an expert according to the GS and/or Daubert Standards, you most likely are not making the cut. The person regularly publishing papers and working as the profession will be considered the expert over you. If all you have is a few papers to your name and no other activities relating to the subject...well it's not a good look to be considered an expert. "AVTP this is elitist! Not everyone can go to college/grad school on *subject matter*" That's right. Not everyone can go to school for psychology, history, ecology, polisci, let alone go and make it their career. These people are not experts then. Plain and simple. You don't get to call yourself an expert because you listen to podcasts or do deep dives on Wikipedia. (And note, this is not about the blogs who are posting about how they did a hyper fixation deep dive on frog naming nomenclature when they were in high school. I am talking about the persons who are presenting themselves as knowledgeable authorities and using phrases like "As a *insert specialist field here*" while they pick courses for their sophomore/junior/senior year.)

#Expertise #Death of Expertise #False Expertise #Jumblr #We've all seen the those posts #I had a student falsely present themselves as a psychologist and “recover” traumatic memories #It resulted in court cases where the student admitted they were a sophomore on the stand after people were falsely accused

[lastoneout]

Finally saw the SBS where Oda confirms what jobs the Straw Hats would have if they lived in the real world and I cannot take this seriously. Like is he aware that most of these character's jobs are things people do in the real world?? Archeologist, meteorologist/cartographer, doctor, chef, rock star, these are real jobs. Why wouldn't they have the same jobs?? Truly baffling on every level. I refuse to accept any of these as canon.

Anyway here's my objectively correct take:

Luffy: Urban explorer. He posts stuff online but it's all really sporadic and not polished at all. Despite that he still has a moderate yet dedicated following. Not that he cares about having a following. Has broken so many laws it's ridiculous but always manages to get away. Probably lives out of a van, but despite this he does not have a driver's license. Makes money in underground fighting tournaments, but it's not about the money. Spends his free time hanging out with his friends.

Nami: Meterologist and cartographer, like she has a degree, but her "job" is being a storm chaser who has a massive tiktok + youtube following. Zeus is her assistant. The rest of the Straw Hats feature in her videos or tag along sometimes. Probably also takes sponsorships but she does vet them pretty well, and gives a lot of money to charity. Works with her family on their tangerine farm in her off time.

Zoro: Master swordsman that hangs out at his old sensei's dojo giving weird advice to the noobs, but has a "side gig" as a vigilante bcs he gets into fights with creeps at the bars he hangs out at. Luffy, Nami, and the rest of their friends are often present for these asskicking sessions, though it's mostly Luffy. Sleeps in his free time, usually in the back of or on top of Luffy's van. No one knows where he lives or if he even has an apartment in the first place. Tags along when Luffy goes exploring bcs Luffy has no idea how to be safe and someone has to make sure he doesn't end up dead on the floor of some abandoned building or stranded at the top of a cellphone tower.

Sanji: Owns a food truck ever since Zeff fired him. Probably still parks near the Baratie most days(and gets into shouting matches with Zeff when he notices), but he travels around the city. He wants to open his own restaurant but it's slow going bcs he doesnt make anywhere near as much money as he could since he keeps giving free food to pretty ladies and people who are down on their luck. Still, he always manages to scrape by. Typical yelp review says the atmosphere is shit but the food is phenomenal. Doesn't have a lot of free time but spends what he does with his friends. Terminally bitchless.

Usopp: Mad scientist who spends a third of his time building wild shit in his garage, a third working in his garden, and the rest as a playing competitive Fortnite and Overwatch. Has a small but VERY dedicated twitch following. Also he def posts bs on reddit and no one can tell if he's lying or not bcs he really is just that out there.

Chopper: Med student. Doesn't get taken as seriously as he deserves but his teachers love him. He also spends a large portion of his time patching up his friends. And he's a furry. Also I could see him having a small blog where he reviews theme parks. Spends the rest of his time hanging out with his friends.

Robin: Professional archeologist and historian. Could be tenured but she's too much of a wild card for that. Def has a criminal past but doesn't talk about it that often. Absolutely can kill a person in like 10 different ways. No one has any idea why she hangs out with a bunch of weirdos but she seems happy so w/e. Follows SO many pet blogs and tags along with Chopper when he hits the parks. Also does yoga.

Franky: Automotive mechanic who specializes in absolutely absurd modifications. Like flamethrowers and shit. Probably wants to build some sort of car mecha but no one can tell if he's serious or not. Has been banned from most places of buisness bcs he refuses to wear pants. Can be found hanging around Sanji's food truck or with Luffy and his van, constantly begs them to let him do wild shit to both. Sanji says no. Luffy says yes.

Brooke: Lead of a popular local band. They sell out concerts and he has a respectable YouTube channel where he posts covers and original stuff(though he's old and the others have to help him with computer stuff). Is hardly ever seen without his massive dog Laboon, who also is the band's mascot.

Jimbe: Bro he's retired(used to be a union leader and an activist) and spends most of his time ferrying Luffy around in his van. Also helps Nami out and has def saved her life a few times. Her audience adores him, which he gets a kick out of, but he doesn't have any social media of his own. A bit of an adrenaline junkie but it comes and goes. Surfs and does martial arts in his free time, but his priority is to enjoy life and have fun with his friends.

Disagree if you want but you AND Oda can meet me on the pit about it <3

#long post #one piece #op #edit: okay I understand that these were alternate jobs now #but also I can't accept Zoro as a police officer he would never

[aipilosse]

I’d like your opinion if not too much of a bother: Do you think that in actual canon Sauron was somewhat initially sincere in his offer to help the elves improve middle earth? It reads to me like he was only interested in lying to the elves of Eregion for his own personal use, but I can’t get past the idea that it seemed so easy for him to fool them. Fooling men is one thing, but the elves seem to take stock of others much more accurately. The easiest way to deceive is to have some truth mixed in with the lies. There is somewhere that says something to the effect of his repentance might have been sincere initially at one time (though I think it was more because he was scared for himself).

Questions about Sauron are never a bother!!!

Short answer: Yes, I think Sauron was somewhat sincere in his offer to help the elves improve Middle-earth.

Longer answer: Yes, I think Sauron was somewhat sincere in his offer to help the elves improve Middle-earth and I have textual support!

The well known line that you referred to is from Of The Rings of Power and the Third Age in the Silmarillion, and is regarding Sauron abjuring his past deeds to Eönwë:

And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out of fear, being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the great wrath of the Lords of the West.

Now, you can (fairly) make the argument that this is no true repentance if he's just doing so because he's scared, and that by the time he approaches the elves circa S.A. 1000, he was back to being 100% bad vibes, evil all day e'er day, bad news bears, etc. but I think his desire to work with the elves to improve the world was genuine.

This is slightly undercut by what comes next:

Seeing the desolation of the world, Sauron said in his heart that the Valar, having overthrown Morgoth, had again forgotten Middle-earth; and his pride grew apace. He looked with hatred on the Eldar, and he feared the Men of Númenor who came back at whiles in their ships to the shores of Middle-earth; but for long he dissembled his mind and concealed the dark designs that he shaped in his heart.

You might say, well there you have it, he has dark designs and hates the elves, case closed pack it up, but WAIT. Now, if you know me, you know I don't hold much truck with most 'biased narrator' bs, but I do think it's worthwhile whenever we are being told about a character's thoughts to consider the framing of the story and how those thoughts could possibly have been known. I think in this case and in others (for instance, Maedhros' thoughts right before he dies) we can assume that whoever is recording the story, whatever their motives, did not actually know what characters like Sauron are thinking.

'But Aipi, you filthy hypocrite,' you say. 'You've argued yourself that the 'single narrator' lens of the Silm that many fans take misconstrues what's going on, since the sources it pulls from have multiple in-text historians and bards or sometimes none at all, and because of that, you can't just chuck out the lines you don't like with no evidence.'

Fair, totally fair, but I have evidence!

The reason I think the "dark designs" bit is color added by a historian who did not actually know Sauron's thoughts at the time he came to the elves is because of On Motives.

If you are a Sauron fan, I highly recommend tracking down a copy of Morgoth's Ring and reading the chapter 'Notes on Motives in the Silmarillion'. I am resisting quoting the whole thing, but importantly we are told:

[Sauron] did not object to the existence of the world, so long as he could do what he liked with it. He still had the relics of positive purposes, that descended from the good of the nature in which he began: it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall, and of his relapse) that he loved order and co-ordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction.

On Motives gives us several important facts: Sauron has the relics of positive purpose, he has the virtue of loving order and coordination, he fell and then again relapsed (which means he must have achieved some sort of not-evil state inbetween the fall and the relapse!).

We also get this wonderful line comparing Sauron and Saruman:

Sauron's love (originally) or (later) mere understanding of other individual intelligences was correspondingly weaker.

And there are other references to Sauron being capable of admiring minds outside of his own in On Motives. To me, all this points to Sauron not only coming to the elves with genuine aspirations to help, but also that at this point perhaps 'hatred of the Eldar' is a wee bit overblown.

The idea that Sauron falls, starts to walk a better path, and falls again is a key motif in the history of Middle-earth. It echoes Morgoth's arc, and then is replicated in miniature in a way in Gollum. He has some genuinely good intentions, but these are warped by his desire for control and the corrupting nature of power.

There's even more bits on Sauron and his fair motives in Tolkien's letters, but I think I'll wrap with this quote (another fave):

But at the beginning of the Second Age he was still beautiful to look at, or could still assume a beautiful visible shape – and was not indeed wholly evil, not unless all 'reformers' who want to hurry up with 'reconstruction' and 'reorganization' are wholly evil, even before pride and the lust to exert their will eat them up.

Perhaps Sauron was always doomed to fall again because of his need to control, but I think the elves of Eregion recognized a genuine kindred motive in him.

#Sauron #Mairon #meta #I could go on #but this is already too long! #all credit to Gaia for the thoughts on Maedhros

[twobluecows]

Supernatural “Heart of the Dragon” by Keith R.A. DeCandido

This is the second installment of my reviews of the Supernatural novel series, here is the first.

"Heart of the Dragon" is the fourth book in the series, and takes place shortly after season fives episode Changing Channels. (there is a historians note in the beginning of the book.)

Rating: 3/5 (getting better!)

This story follows another ghost murder cycle, this time it is every 20 years and takes place in Chinatown, San Francisco. We follow Sam and Dean in 2009, John in 1989, and Samuel, Deanna, and Mary Campbell in 1969 as everyone tries to get rid of the ghost and demon on the same hunt.

First things first, this book has some insanely racist shit through (mainly) the first third of the book, and it nearly pushed me to DNF when I first began. The author consistently uses dated slurs for Chinese and Japanese Americans throughout making the story overall plain awful and difficult to read. This book is well written and interesting in other respects, and it is great in regards to it being a story about Supernatural. If you’re going to read it be careful and know what you’re getting into. That all being said, it is impossible to ignore the racist bullshit so I’m docking two points.

Other than that, this story caught me off guard with how well it handled the Campbells and John's perspectives. In the main SPN canon we don't know much about Deanna, other than she was just kind of there, in this story she is fleshed out more and is really a badass. Samuel and John are paralleled a lot between their two perspectives, both being generally bad fathers who raised their children in constant danger. In the 1989 sections we also get a glimpse of Bobby caring for a young Dean and Sam, which made me very teary-eyed. Oh, and bonus points for Cas appearances, while they were few and far between I enjoyed them.

Overall this story was a great dive into characters we didn't see much of in the main series, and an expansion of what we already knew about John's A+ parenting. If you decide to read this book precede with caution, as mentioned before it comes with a heaping of racist BS in the beginning.

Here are some quotes from the story that I want to highlight:

2 books done. . . 15 more to go. . . (Btw I’m on spring break so I have been doing nothing but reading and petting my dog, so on to the next one!)

Oh, and Shortie tried to eat this one too.

#arin's supernatural novel reviews #supernatural #book review #spn #sam winchester #dean winchester #bobby singer #john winchester #spn novels

[katharinepar]

well, now I will have to ask your opinion 👀

Lol! Okay, I’ll fold. I already talked about this a bit on my Instagram, but beware the 500 year old spoilers ahead! (Also, I’m writing this from my phone as I am still in the hospital so bear with me in terms of typos!)

Here is what I did like: the soundtrack was tolerable (modern, but not terrible); Anne and Henry’s respective actors had palpable chemistry as performers; the filming locations are all visually sumptuous; it’s flush with well-known historians with keen insight into the Tudor court. Tracy Borman, one of the ‘talking heads historians’ and a leading voice in BS&R, is also the author behind Private Lives of the Tudors, a book I continuously go back to in my own research (it isn’t infallible - but it is incredibly detail-oriented and I hold Borman in some esteem for that). I am also one of those people who happens to enjoy dual perspective docuseries - this one, in particular, is split between the actors in all their regalia and the grounding, guiding hands of the historians. The manner of filming was similar to The Boleyns on PBS, except more of an emphasis is placed on the actors in BS&R, and it is certainly a great deal fluffier.

Here’s where you’ll allow me to nitpick, though: there were a few hits within the costuming department, I’ll allow them that. Some of the bodices worked in reflecting the Tudors’ love of tapering, V-shaped waists, and square décolletages adorned with jewels. However, as the show progressed, the hits became fewer and far between - and from the very start, the headdresses were atrocious. There was nothing remotely Tudor about them.

And here is what I loathed:

The driving ideology behind BS&R - especially from Borman’s perspective - encompasses the idea that Anne was ‘not like other girls’ (taken verbatim), an ideology that is both lazy, obsolete and downright frustrating ESPECIALLY considering this program was meant to be from a ‘feminist’s’ point of view. I would pay good money to scrape that phrase from every historian’s lexicon, for the love of God. It is especially tasteless when done in unison with tearing down Catherine of Aragon, Jane Seymour, & Jane Boleyn. Ir seems the only appropriate analysis for a woman like Anne Boleyn is that of comparison to her female contemporaries, in which Anne is always depicted as a woman ahead of her time and her rivals and peers as unthinking, unblinking paperweights. The show also strangely chose to go down the route of depicting Anne as coming from literally nothing - “plucked from obscurity” - which is laughable?? The Boleyns were well-connected and Anne was privileged enough to enjoy an education abroad, so I’m genuinely baffled that the idea Anne was a mangy lil peasant was even mentioned? And oh, yes, didn’t you hear that Anne introduced the idea of charity to the monarchy? 🙄

With this in mind, I also had trouble believing that the powers that be behind BS&R have any concept of ‘feminism’ at all - at least, not the intersectional kind. Anne’s portrayal as a hyper-proto-feminist is a very far take from existent 16th century sources and the contexts of Early Modern England. Anne was not a feminist. We may view her actions as being triumphant through the lens of women’s history, but none of her behaviours suggested she was anything more than influenced by the lofty standards set by medieval queens - such as the distribution of charity, care for the poor, interest in the spread & heartiness of religion, etc. I could understand if the directors sought to paint Anne as an independent woman through her influence of Henry’s state affairs, but we know from primary sources that Henry did not welcome her input - he wanted a quintessential queen, giving birth and sustaining the Tudors image of strength and unity - in the way that he had formerly accepted Catherine’s (at least for a time, particularly in matters of international warfare.)

The prolific use of modern speech also becomes, at times, grating - at others, it makes Anne seem like an idiot. George Boleyn uttering the phrase ‘haters gonna hate’ caused my skin to crawl (despite this I liked the casting for both George and Jane - wish they had been given more of a spotlight). When the academics are using formal speech and the actors are using phrases like ‘bestie’ and ‘screw the Pope’ it’s like… are we designing these characters to seem relatable or just plain stupid?

I also found myself stretching my imagination in order to believe the actress who plays Anne is ‘actually’ Anne Boleyn. She plays Anne as a quirky Bridget Jones type instead of the cool, charismatic, and intriguing firebrand we have come to know. In that vein, I did enjoy certain glimpses of Anne’s more ‘charismatic’ and fun-loving side: these traits are almost always done away with in order to portray Anne as a slick femme fatale, but we know it was to boisterous, convivial courtiers that Henry was most attracted. Showing Anne laughing, having female relationships, and bantering with members of the court from high to low status is perhaps the most ‘revolutionary’ thing BS&R accomplished - it is, in my opinion, one of the better parts of the show.

But what I was really looking forward to in BS&R - considering we were promised a ‘feminist’s’ take on Tudor history - was a fleshy portrayal of Catherine of Aragon. I didn’t dare dream we would have this in Jane Seymour, and indeed, Jane only appears on the sidelines for a single scene. Anyway, I had hoped with names like Borman, Lipscomb, and Emmmerson attached, the show would have opted not to revive Catherine as the dark-haired shrew we were so close to burying. Alas, Catherine was only given two lines - all dripping with jealousy and hatred towards Anne and Henry - before she is erased from the narrative completely. She is only mentioned again when Anne sports flamboyant yellow tulle at her death. But let me tell you, Anne hammers in that neither Catherine nor Henry ever loved each other in every episode - which is just… not true.

If BS&R is what the producers had hoped to be a ‘gateway drug’ into Tudor history, they succeeded; I can understand why casual watchers may enjoy the story of two sex-obsessed, madly in love, desperate to break the mold royals. But for anyone looking for a nuanced, meaty, comprehensive view of Anne Boleyn and the Tudor court, Blood Sex and Royalty is a resounding disappointment. 🥲

#anne boleyn #the tudors #catherine of aragon #jane seymour #henry viii #blood sex & royalty #blood sex and royalty #tudors #katherine of aragon #anonymous

[obaewankenope]

Yesterday, my mother and I were discussing Liz IIs death, who'd take the throne, and blah blah about it all (including me informing her that the 3mil funeral cost is because of Victoria's redesign of state funerals blah blah) and she asked me:

Okay, hotshot (I shit you not, she used that word), if you know so much about all this (waving her hand and indicating... Idk... Monarchy shit I guess??) stuff then why did Edward (VIII) have to abdicate the thrown to marry a divorcee if they're letting Charles be King now with her (meaning Camilla)?

And like, I had to stop a minute and think about this all because wow, memory and Monarchy ugh. So! Buckle in y'all its gonna be a great ride!

In 1936, the King of England (and the Commonwealth) was Edward VIII. He caused something called the "Abdication Crisis" because he wanted to marry a divorcee Wallis Simpson but this was a Big No No for a Royal to do.

Now, the thing is, this is what is generally Known about it all. But what my mother (and probably a lot of other people) didn't know is that Eddie 8:

was a Nazi sympathiser

met Hitler in 1937

got pictured performing the Nazi salute

gave German intelligence info on France's military set up that was used to invade France in 1940

and then ended in Portugal after he fled France being invaded where he and his wife rubbed shoulders with German agents and Nazi sympathisers etc etc.

See, the thing is, the Abdication Crisis was what was Publicly Known at the time and made a great Public Excuse for Eddie 8 to leave the throne to his younger brother Albert (George VI) who wasn't a fan of Hitler, the Nazi's or any of that shit.

There's actually a documentary about this darker history of Eddie 8 aired by Channel 4 (Edward VIII: Britain's Traitor King) and I'd recommend giving it a watch because the evidence used by the historian Andrew Lownie is literally decades old. Its from the Royal Archives!

Winston Churchill actually had Eddie 8 removed from Europe all together by making him the Governor of the Bahamas when he was in Portugal and, honestly, the fact that Eddie 8 was also given a Dukedom after adbicating is just Royal Bribery bs to keep him sweet because, afterall, he was a Royal so couldn't have it be known he was a Traitor To The British Empire And Its People blah blah.

The Abdication Crisis was literally a cover up to prevent the common folk from discovering that a King was a Nazi loving bastard and isn't that just a stark reminder of how revisionist history is.

I have known about this for years but for my mother it was a revelation. She had No Idea Eddie 8 had been a Nazi lover, or any of the rest. She, like most, assumed he had been kicked off the throne because he wanted to marry a divorcee but...

Like... That's literally never been an issue for the Royal fucking Family. Like, sure, it was only in 2002 that the Protestant Church of England allowed people to marry divorcees but literally Henry the Fucking Eighth had how many divorces etc etc? It wasn't an impossibility to happen in the first place. But it made a nice smokescreen to oust a King who favoured an enemy nation at a time of great upheaval.

Especially since, ya know, World War II was happening and all that. Yeah...

So yeah, there's some history on the bullshit British Royal Family and how the Public knowledge is carefully curated hogwash by PR managers and Buckingham Palace™ to protect the "image" of the Royal Family and whatever Ruling Monarch there is at the time.

Cool right?

#Uk #UK history #Royal family #Edward VIII #Nazi #World War 2 #Europe #Modern history #The Royal Family is a cesspool of cover ups criminals and more #That gets a sanitising for public consumption lmao #Relevant to the current news rn bc #Well #Don't want anyone thinking Lizzie II was the biggest problem of the Royal Family in the past century lol lol

[mikeepoo]

A stitch in time

Emma Stirling-Middleton, curator at the Cartoon Museum: The exhibition has everything that survives relating to The Wrong Trousers (1993). It takes you on a journey through the making of the film, from Nick Park’s sketchbooks, seeing the evolution of the characters, then developing them into an original script, then storyboarding. Then stepping onto the studio floor to see original models and props. And then we look at the film’s legacy – including the Oscar.

Photograph: Aardman/The Cartoon Museum

To the moon and back

ESM: At the Oscars in 1991, Nick Park was up for two of the three films in the best short animation category. He won for Creature Comforts, which beat A Grand Day Out, the first Wallace and Gromit film. At that time, Creature Comforts stole the limelight while A Grand Day Out was more of a slow burn. It was really with The Wrong Trousers that public interest in Wallace and Gromit exploded.

Photograph: Aardman Studios

A giant leap

David Sproxton, Aardman co-founder and producer of all the Wallace and Gromit films: A Grand Day Out was sort of a student film. To an extent you can pick it apart. Trousers was a whole league higher up the food chain in terms of production values and storytelling.

Photograph: Photo 12/Alamy

A winning partnership

DS: Nick had written most of A Grand Day Out solo, but for this one we teamed him up with Bob Sandy, who’d written a lot of Doctor Who. They got like a house on fire. Bob said: ‘Come on Nick, let’s go through the sketchbooks and see what ideas you’ve got.’

Photograph: Aardman Studios

The plot thickens

DS: Nick had about 24 sketches of a train chase on a model railway because he thought it would be funny to have something in the vein of a major cowboy film or a Bond movie, but on a living room carpet. Bob said: ‘Well, I think what we’ve got here is a heist movie, and that train chase is the denouement. And there’s a picture of a penguin here. I think that’s your villain.’

Photograph: Aardman/The Cartoon Museum

The silent type

DS: It’s visual storytelling. The preliminary sketches are never people with speech bubbles coming out of the mouth; they’re always doing visual gags. Nick always expected Gromit to speak, but when he was making A Grand Day Out and Gromit was meant to speak, he realised he couldn’t actually animate it. So he thought: actually I can just do it with a look. That’s when Gromit went mute. And it’s one reason the entire world loves him – you can understand what he’s thinking without his saying a word.

Photograph: Aardman/The Cartoon Museum

Sitcom side-eye

Brian Sibley, Aardman historian and co-writer on The Wrong Trousers: There’s something so human about Gromit. Just the placing of the eyes – they can be hugely expressive. Although he is a dog, he’s immensely endearing. He’s very much half of a partnership; Wallace and Gromit is a middle-aged kind of concept. It’s sort of Terry and June, a married couple that were the comedy diet in the 60s and 70s.

Photograph: Aardman Studios

Man’s best friend

DS: Wallace and Gromit is an unbreakable marriage. You’ve got this unbelievably dedicated dog living with this master who gets himself into the most terrible holes.

Photograph: Aardman Studios

Sheepdog trials

DS: There are similarities between Gromit and Bitzer, the dog in Shaun the Sheep. Wallace is not two-dimensional, but there’s a carelessness about him which is part of his character. The farmer in Shaun is kind of oblivious. So the dogs have the complex roles: brokering relationships and sorting out the problems set by those that surround them. They have to act as a kind of intermediaries between good and evil. They’ve got a lot of thinking to do. So they are a bit more complex and sophisticated.

Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian

A circle of friends

BS: Wallace and Gromit are appealing, reassuring, warm shapes. Not angular. Everything about them is comfortable. We lean towards characters like Mickey Mouse, which is all circles, or Charles Schulz’s characters, which are based mostly on circular shapes. Wallace and Gromit fit that bill, as do the chickens in Chicken Run and Morph [seen here with David Sproxton (left) and his Aardman co-founder, Peter Lord]. And, obviously, the sheep.

Photograph: Adrian Sherrat/Adrian Sherratt

Cartoon cinematography

DS: The Wrong Trousers is a film noir: all the back alley stuff has a really Hitchcockian look. A lot of that is lighting. When we started, stop-frame lighting was pretty bland and flat – think Morph or The Magic Roundabout. I said: “Let’s light these as if they are live-action dramas. Let’s put the atmosphere in as if they are proper thrillers.”

Photograph: Aardman Studios

A DIY enterprise

ESM: Everything was done by hand, even the special effects: they put in pieces of glass to create the gunshots. A lot of their equipment was antique – mismatched odds and ends they brought from home. And they couldn’t watch back any footage: it was physical film that had to be sent from Bristol to London to be developed.

Photograph: Aardman/The Cartoon Museum

43,200 shots

BS: Film is not a real thing. There are no moving pictures. What we are looking at is 24 images every second that cheats the eye. With a live action film you point the camera, the actors move, the camera automatically takes a whole series of still images. With stop frame animation you have to create every single one of those 24 parts of a second.

Photograph: Aardman/The Cartoon Museum

Work continues

BS: It was a Lilliputian enterprise: repositioning tiny figures for hours each day. The meticulousness and labour-intensive concentration that goes into animation means it’s a really dedicated craft. It’s not something you just rush off.

Photograph: Aardman/The Cartoon Museum

Peter Sallis reprises the role of Wallace

DS: Peter had a bloody good voice. Bob Baker wrote an awful lot of Wallace’s dialogue and invented his timbre, to an extent. Peter could deliver those lines with aplomb and a lovely slight tongue-in-cheek that was really wonderful and lifted the character. Peter was actually a home counties chap, but the humour in that cod northern accent brought a real magic.

Photograph: PA Images/Alamy

Shooting wraps

DS: With animation you generally don’t shoot more than you need, but the rough cut came out about 38 minutes. In the editing room with every cut it got better and better. It doesn’t feel rushed. There’s an awful lot in it but it moves at a rattling pace.

Photograph: Aardman Studios

The film screens

DS: We premiered at the Venice film festival, right before a big movie by this Iranian director, called Manhattan by Numbers, to which we were very much second fiddle. The Wrong Trousers got a standing ovation. I said: “Blimey, Nick this means it’s pretty special.” Then Manhattan By Numbers played and within about 40 minutes, probably about a third of them had walked out. We were sitting next to the director in the balcony. I thought: “God, we’ve gotta stay and then congratulate this guy on his wonderful work.” I spent most of the time thinking: “What the hell am I gonna say?”

Photograph: Ian West/PA

Art imitates life

BS: There’s universality in the specificity. And people around the world love Wallace and Gromit because there’s something very British about it: people creating miniatures and mad inventions on their kitchen tables and in the garden shed. It’s quite Heath Robinson and zany.

Photograph: Sam Frost

Anti-CGI

BS: One of Nick’s other heroes is Ray Harryhausen, and his work – as well as, say the King Kong films of the 30s – shares with Nick’s a kind of tactileness. And that creates a strange anomaly: because we know it isn’t real, it somehow looks more real. The funny thing about CGI is that it can look very real but also be obviously phony. Claymation’s seeming simplicity gives it a kind of emotional and artistic and even spiritual sincerity, which I find absent in a lot of CGI animation.

Photograph: Aardman/The Cartoon Museum

Primal fulfilment

BS: Most people have played with plasticine – and even early civilisations made models in carbon clay. Pretty much everybody who’s ever had a teddy bear or a doll has positioned it: sat it up, laid it down, walked it around. It’s part of what makes us human – this Promethean desire to bring things to life. The special thing about what Nick does is to create figures you can see are made with the hand. The fingerprints on their work make it incredibly personal. It’s like looking at a sculpture by Henry Moore: you are seeing the craftsmanship right there, before your eyes.

Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian

Putting this together taxed my addled brain, but I love Aardman stuff, and claymation all together, just wanted to share.

The whole shebang is taken in total from The Guardian

[onp4012]

Hello! I would love to participate in your game

My favorite book is Frankenstein by Mary Shelley <3

Have a nice day and thank you!

High Priestess, POW, 2P

Damnnn your person seems very interested in the unknown and they have a very very very strong intuition which never fails them. They remind me of the first few lyrics of Fear of The Dark by Iron Maiden: “I am the man who walks alone…” etc. they don’t mind being lonely, they actually appreciate singularity. They aren’t naive absolutely at all. They are very smart and they can see through people’s intentions.

Aggressive, Public, Cultural

I feel like they may come across as aggressive by some but that’s just because they’re not the person who takes bs from anybody. I feel like their skills really help them out with their jobs. They could be working in a domain which studies cultures, gives off strong historian vibes.

[falloutnewvegastransedmygender]

TikTok keeps sending me BS so here's the latest from a livestream. The lives are always the wildest.

Earth is a Globe

Okay so if you have to specify that you're either a troll or you're already in bad company. 4/10 Rough Start but Hilarious that you SPECIFIED

Freemasons are evil

Hmmm, I mean I'm like 90% sure they're a cult but like that's the norm for America at this point so eh. I'm gonna bet this is Illuminati shit tho. 0/10 BORING

Jesus is God

-5/10 Even worse just moving on

Evolution is False

-10/10 Because SkyDaddy makes way more sense got it

Dinosaurs are actually dragons

I'm pretty sure this is mostly a Young Earth thing. Basically it claims dinosaurs didn't go extinct millions of years ago and that medieval depictions of dragons are actually dinosaurs (and other non dinosaurs that get lumped in). I do believe a lot of historians think that fossils may have informed dragons though so. 10/10 Technically Accurate Theory, Gave me a chance to go on about YEC shit.

Magick is Real

Well I prefer to spell it magic and like I'm Pagan and witchy so not too bad. Ohhh you wanna burn books got it. 0/10 Quit Demonizing Shit

Chemtrails are also Real

I mean if you say so bub. 0/10 Boring.

Lack of masculinity is more toxic than toxic masculinity.

Okay so, like, where's the fucking point? Are you being Transphobic? Are you calling men who don't abuse the women in their life "non masculine?" Masculinity has many healthy forms that lots of men express, but no toxic masculinity is rife with abusive traits. -20/10 Worst Take Here TBH

#foxo ramblings #tw caps

[antiterf]

(Prefacing this to say that I'm not trying to convince you to move from neutral to pro transandrophobia- i think you being neutral is ur right and I can definitely understand why you are neutral. Just wanted to state my own perspective as a trans man, esp. As a trans man of color. Feel free to delete if necessary!)

I'm personally pro transandrophobia as a term because just as Trans Women have unique experiences due to their intersection of being Women and being Trans, and Black Trans Women experience a particularly unique blend of issues due to being Women who are Trans and black, Trans men also face a unique set of issues. Of course these issues can vary depending on where Trans men live, what their race is, how well they pass (as BS as passing is as a concept)and other factors, but so too might a Trans Woman's experience of transmisogyny/transmisogynoir vary based on similar criteria. Until recently, I've felt that there has been a major lack in information/discussion of transmasc specific issues, especially as a black Trans man. I've always felt like the specific intersection of transness and agab of transmasculinity causes unique issues combining misogyny and transphobia that isn't the same as transmisogyny. On top of that, Trans men of color like myself have the added issue of racism, adding to the bigotry stew we face. imho there just hasn't been adequate language to describe these issues until the introduction of transmisandry followed by the (more apt imo) term transandrophobia. I feel like this term adds to the toolkit we need to break down the systemic and societal issues we face. Ofc this is just my personal perspective, but I feel like the transphobia, misogyny, racism, and homophobia I face varies greatly from the same issues others face due to my identity, and I feel like discussing transandrophobia helps Bring light to how differently Trans men may be affected by these issues.

I'm not sure if I'm making sense, and apologies if my thoughts are all over the place, but hopefully this adds a perspective that others can see and take into account in the conversation surrounding transandrophobia...

I felt the same with lack of discussion around the issues trans men face. And I've thought about how I can make many shallow excuses, but overall I think I simply don't know enough about what's going on to speak on it.

I'm only 21, and what you get from everyday interaction with other trans people in activist spaces when learning about 20+ years ago in written history is limited if not non existent. Much of it focuses on a broad view that would be put through the individual lens of the historian or the person recording it, and there aren't many of those people. Basically, I can't relate to what I've learned of queer history back to this because the most queer history we have with trans men is "look, a trans man, or a possible one" and nothing about theories or activism from other trans people. This also applies heavily to trans women. So what we end up with is a cisnormative lens of what gender and how one gender is oppressive against the other, without much solidly believed theory from actual trans people.

This is part of what transandrophobia does. Its taking the issues of being men and having masculinity, but not as what we expect in a cisgender world, and the struggles that come with it. This can possibly applied to men in other minorities, like Black men or in my case disabled men, but much of that I've seen is surface level ("oh, look how masculinity hurts these groups in different ways" rather than "so how about we theorize how we see structural gendered oppression through this"), and that would be my responsibility to find out more for comparison about how this can work out.

I think transandrophobia has potential to finally take "but what about men?" And actually make it productive in the examination of gender rather than anti feminist nonsense. But what it seems to do as of currently is focus on the inner LGBTQ+ community more than anything, especially trans women for some fucking reason (transmisogyny, blaming them for hypervisibility), rather than the cisnormative societies that mainly hurt us.

Like, the other day in the gay trans men being called fujoshis post, someone added these tags. I never mentioned trans women once. I've always focused more on the experiences of trans men because I am one, but the fact that I talk about it now and shade is thrown at trans women is incredibly worrying.

And what I said there is probably inaccurate because right now it's so new and there hasn't been a common ground established. Everyone that is loud about it, either for or against, are automatically biased and will show extreme negatives with each group. I don't know how the community is doing as a whole, what's going on as a whole, and do it reliably. That coupled with a lack of history doesn't sit well.

And I kind of wrote that rant because its really not because I don't see the use of transandrophobia, and I think it can be important especially with trans moc or honestly any of us who have intersecting minority statuses. I genuinely hope it can carry on to be critically looked at and discussed. But right now it's just chaos and please don't compare it to transmisogyny because thats on the basis of intersectionality, and transandrophobia would not fit under that same concept.

If something clicks from the research I do either in school or my free time I'll definitely talk about it.

#notaterftip #not sarcasm #whatsintheinbox

[xplrvibes]

Not Sam the literal guy who told us not to put so much energy into vacations & time off, crying over his life “feeling like a job” now. Wasnt this the same man who has been posting about expensive meals, and amazing friends, and amazing parties, and woo hoo this and woo hoo that?? So it’s all been for show you say? And he really wasnt or hasnt been “having the time of his life?”. I think instead of buying self help books for dummies, this man needs to take a crash course on sociology, and human behavior/social environment to really understand where most of his followers are coming from because he does not present himself to be relatable at all. Its like me reading one history chapter and calling myself a historian. He works for himself and complains more than someone like myself with a grummy 9-5 would, and not saying he isnt allowed to complain but why write bullshit think piece after bullshit think piece telling fans that vacations and relaxing arent all thats cracked up to be. He goes back and forth. Why not be real and show who you really are rather than pretending shitty music being played by a boombox is making you have the time of your life with “friends” who come and go yet always seem to be the best people ever for 2.5 seconds.

Sorry for ranting but this kid is really getting on my nerves, and i think you always give real raw opinions on them instead of sugar coating everything.

I will say this: for better or worse, his speech on snap yesterday was probably the most real I've ever seen him be. No bullshit, no trying to sell us a bill of goods about how great life is...nope, it was just, "Things are really hard and I'm very stressed about it."

I appreciated hearing that more than some "working all day, everyday, is the only way you'll ever achieve true greatness and happiness," bs.

Sam is hard to figure out and relate to, because he's so damn focused on building a persona of himself instead of just being himself that it just comes across sometimes (to me at least) as someone who is just playing a part in a one-man show that we all didn't know we bought tickets to, and that's the thing that can sometimes be grating about his little "think" pieces. They aren't always genuine, they aren't always true, and I don't think they are truly him- they come off as the him he wants to be perceived as, and not the person he is inside.

I also think a lot of his posts about loving the job and the grind and the "party life" is all part of that- he wants to be perceived as a fun guy with a great life and an internal library of great stories and life lessons because of it, and sometimes he has to alter the perception a bit to make the reality he's presenting fit the narrative he's tryjng to present, you know what I mean? I believe they call it "smoke and mirrors."

Now, does that mean he isn't always having a grand time in life? No, he does have a unique and high adrenaline, fun life and I'd love to hear all about it- but I can never tell with him when he's genuinely having fun and having a good day vs when the smoke and mirrors are out in full force and hes trying to justify a way to continue to live at as fast of a pace as he's living, or trying to sell this made up perception of himself. Whats real and what's a bill of goods? I don't know. I don't even know if he knows anymore, which is a little sad.

The food posts, btw, are them just trying to use payola to their advantage to get a free meal, which I have no issue with- if I had that kind of juice, you'd best believe I'd never pay for food again lol.

Anyway, for once, he wasn't sugar coating shit yesterday. He wasn't trying to sell anyone (at least on snap) on how great life is. He's stressed, his life choices are starting to cost him strain in places he didn't realize he couldn't afford to have strained (primarily relationships) and he's approaching burnout.

And btw- I said they would burn out eventually, if they had to do their own editing. I said this back when their fandom bullied them back into doing their own editing again, and look where we are, right on cue. Sam's crying in the parking lot of the post office, Colby's turned into a self help guru on snapchat as a way to try and avoid his own issues, they've got two mansions and no furniture in either one and that is somehow a great symbolism for how empty their lives are right now.

Let these boys have editors.

Anywho, Sam, if youre out there in tumbrland (please dont be out there in tumblrland): I'd appreciate it greatly if you were more honest and direct, not just with us, but with yourself more often. Not everything needs to be a Ted talk, a teachable moment, or a self-help quote. Sometimes, life is awesome and sometimes it's balls. Be honest and raw and not preachy about it all, and for fucks sake- stop trying to sell that more work = more happiness, cause you, Sam and Colby, are a textbook example of that not always being the case.

Also, please don't ever tell people again that vacations aren't the bomb dot com, as we used to say way back in the 1990s. Downtime is a necessary tool for anyone looking to not burn out completely.

#asks #disclaimer: opinions. also snc are not on tumblr; that part was a JOKE.

[sublimeobservationarcade]

Nikki Hayley Don’t Mention The Civil War

The white supremacist Republican Party doesn’t recognise slavery. Hey, that is critical race theory! The warped and distorted truth according to the GOP exists in another dimension entirely from the rest of the world. Nikki Hayley don’t mention the Civil War. The Trumpist GOP marches to the beat of an election denying and coup trying demagogue. A compulsive liar who has spun so many mistruths he is a deflecting destroyer of democracy. The loathsome racist past of America is emerging from the shadows to once again dance on the graves of its many victims. Wilmington, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and the decades of lynchings in the South. Memories of the time before!

The Civil War & The GOP Southern Strategy

Some political commentators say that the Civil War never really ended and that the fight for America has continued. Republicans have attempted to hide their embrace of southern racism and apartheid by banging on about state rights. However, the Southern Strategy was very real and that beacon of integrity, Richard Nixon, kicked it off. Selling your soul for political advantage was not invented by Americans but it sure has defined their recent political history. Historians like Cox Richardson tell us that the South really won the Civil War because of what it got away with in the Reconstruction. Chattel slavery merely morphed into peonage slavery. Blacks were locked up under the Black Codes and worked under debt arrangements, often, till their death from mistreatment. Apartheid flourished all over America for a century or more. It still widely exists in the north in schools, where whites don’t want their kids sharing their education with African Americans. The 21C and still racism flourishes in America. Photo by Huynh Van on Pexels.com God Bless America Nikki Hayley Americans love to believe in fictions. The fiction that God loves America is particularly virulent. If God so loves America, why do Americans need to carry so many guns. They spend more than a trillion dollars a year on national security. It seems they have embraced the Judeo Christian mindset right down to the paranoia so prevalent in the Old Testament. Wacko prophets spouting siege mentality BS born of this Jewish cult with delusions of grandeur. Judea was a backwater during the times of the Assyrian and Egyptian empires. The bible as a text holds great appeal for those with a victim mentality. The Promised Land and the Chosen People are the dreams of refugees. It is interesting that the Christian Nationalists cannot see the parallels with the many illegal immigrants on their borders wishing for a better life. The GOP authoritarians paint this as a major issue to sow fear into middle class white America. Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com They Are Coming To Take It Away! Someone is coming for your land and your property. Someone is always coming to take it away, according to fear mongering political stratagems. Conservative parties engender anxiety in ‘the haves’ regarding ‘the have nots’ potentially threatening their wealth and privilege. Ever since the end of the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment granted rights to African Americans politicians in America have been dog whistling about race. Warning white voters that any largesse shown to blacks would cost them from their own hip pockets. Every time slavery was abolished anywhere in the world it is slave owners who were economically reimbursed but never the former slaves. Property rights gazumped human rights every time. Americans like to pat themselves on the back for ending slavery but they have never repaired the economic damage to those enslaved. They have never willingly evened the playing field between blacks and whites. White supremacists have actively ensured the ongoing neglect and inopportunity presented to African Americans across the land. “Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley declined to specify that slavery was a cause of the civil war on Wednesday, wading into an area of history that continues to reverberate and in some ways define US politics nearly 160 years after it concluded.” - (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/28/nikki-haley-civil-war-slavery) This has morphed into rabid anti-government feeling in the US. A shared belief that the government in Washington DC has intentions upon the private wealth of citizens. The radical Trumpist GOP fosters these beliefs and intimates it has anarchical plans to defund the IRS and big government. The paranoid ambience of this gun toting section of the population is ripe for all sorts of BS about Liberal leftists and socialists. The poppycock that these folk believe is frightening in their very gullibility to eat up this crap. Fox News desecrates journalism every minute of the day. Rupert Murdoch should be prosecuted for polluting the truthosphere. Trump grifts off these delusions raising millions of dollars for his various campaigns and for his private embellishment. U.S. President Donald Trump at the 101st by U.S. Department of Agriculture is licensed under CC-CC0 1.0 Will the US Supreme Court hold Trump accountable for his crimes against the Constitution? How can you have a Presidential candidate running for office who claims that he was electorally cheated out of office by voter fraud? Numerous investigations by both public and private bodies have found no evidence for these claims. The Big Lie is just that. In what universe can you allow a candidate who serially questions the integrity of the electoral system to run for office? It makes no sense on any measure. In addition, there is evidence that Trump attempted to pervert the course of justice in his multiple attempts to gain votes via fake elector schemes. The pot calling the kettle black, even a white supremacist can do this in the United States, it seems. Trump is clearly an insurrectionist following his January 6th call for his supporters to take over the Capital following his election defeat to Joe Biden. That he still has not been punished for this is a judicial disgrace. Hundreds of foot soldiers have been prosecuted and locked up. Wealth and power in the US affords a different kind of justice, it seems. If the wheels turned any slower they would be going in reverse. Jack Smith is beginning to look like one of those biblical prophets himself with beard and blazing eyes. Taking on the whole of ugly white America and its entitled cult hero puts him into the superhero category. I wonder whether Marvel will come knocking or is just too real for American tastes? President Trump Congratulates Record Breaking Astronaut (NHQ201704240005) by NASA HQ PHOTO is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 Nikki Hayley don’t mention the Civil War. The GOP candidates are a collection of the weird and wonderful. The political game is a strange one. Only Chris Christie, the man with two first names, will openly criticize Trump. The others are hoping and wishing that the many indictments will render Trump void in time for their own resurrection from obscurity and electoral irrelevance. In the meantime, just don’t mention slavery and other non-white stuff. White people are feeling less privileged and their thin skin is pink with righteous rage. White men are taking back their sense of entitlement over women and the other races. Reproductive rights are a male entitlement in the South. The GOP is championing their cause for more privilege. Just don’t mention the Civil War, Nikki Hayley. Robert Sudha Hamilton is the author of Money Matters: Navigating Credit, Debt, and Financial Freedom. ©MidasWord Read the full article

#America #culturalidentity #NikkiHayley #racism #Trump

[seashellsoldier]

“How to be an Antiracist” by Ibram X. Kendi (2019)

NPR’s Chicago station interviewed Dr. Kendi in 2019 (https://www.npr.org/local/309/2019/10/30/774704183/historian-ibram-x-kendi-on-how-to-be-an-antiracist), and it’s certainly worth the listen.

This is a formidable book from a true scholar whose humility, self-awareness, intellectualism, and candor provide a guiding light for us all. That said, I feel inadequate in my abilities to summarize and critique this subject well enough, being an educated, empathetic, and formerly “color-blind” Whitey McWhite who grew up in the shadow of Chicago. However, this could be a beneficial addition to high-school / undergrad curriculum. The social/political/power concept of “race” is a deeply complex, deeply historic issue not easily unpacked, and terribly tough to digest, because on some level we are all a part of the problem of its promulgation—and therein lies the true crux of the issue: we are complicit if not consciously, then most likely subconsciously or even unconsciously. The programming goes deep into our greymatter. As Dr. Kendi compares at the end, racism as a societal cancer, one we have the power to kill—despite chronic past failures, and this happens first on the level of each individual to grow into an antiracist. We cannot expect the “system” to change of its own free will. We have to change it, starting with our own mind and heart because:

“History duels: the undeniable history of antiracist progress, the undeniable history of racist progress. Before and after the Civil War, before and after civil rights, before and after the first Black presidency, the White consciousness duels. The White body segregates the Black body from the American body. The White body instructs the Black body to assimilate into the American body. The White body rejects the Black body assimilating into the American body—and history and consciousness duel anew.

The Black body in turn experiences the dame duel. The Black body is instructed to become an American body. The American body is the White body. The Black body strives to assimilate into the American body. The American body rejects the Black body. The Black body separates from the American body. The Black body is instructed to assimilate into the American body—and history and consciousness duel anew.

But there is a way to get free. To be antiracist is to emancipate oneself from the dueling consciousness. To be antiracist is to conquer the assimilationist consciousness and the segregationist consciousness. The White body no longer presents itself as the American body; the Black body no longer strives to be the American body, knowing there is no such thing as the American body, only American bodies, racialized by power” (p. 44).

This emancipation is crucial, of course, and to Kendi “a radical reorientation of our consciousness” (p. 31). Demonstrations and protests and election cycles rarely produce meaningful progressive changes. The Occupy Wall Street movement utterly failed. The Black Lives Matter movement has been impotent. The We Call BS movement has changed nothing. Standing Rock didn’t stop the pipeline. “The history of racist ideas is the history of powerful policymakers erecting racist policies out of self-interest, then producing racist ideas to defend and rationalize the inequitable effects of their policies, while everyday people consume those racist ideas, which in turn sparks ignorance and hate” (p. 294). Racism is now inherently systemic, and Kendi has a deft way of disentangling the nomenclature between racist and color-blind and antiracist, segregationist and assimilationists, and so much more we tend to take for granted or words we outright misuse in the digital age. “To be antiracist is to recognize the reality of biological equality, that skin color is as meaningless to our underlying humanity as the clothes we wear over that skin. To be antiracist is to recognize there is no such thing as White blood or Black diseases or natural Latinx athleticism. To be antiracist is to also recognize the living, breathing reality of this racial mirage, which makes our skin colors more meaningful than our individuality. To be antiracist is to focus on ending the racism that shapes the mirage, not to ignore the mirages that shape peoples’ lives” (pp. 69-70). This may seem easy for many of us, but Kendi highlights how deep the problem goes: “The root problem—from Prince Henry to President Trump—has always been self-interest of racial power” (p. 54). Our individual emancipation will help change the system by the choices we make, enlightened by the awareness of the power structures that propel systemic racism (and classism).

“When a policy exploits poor people, it is an elitist policy. When a policy exploits Black people, it is a racist policy. When a policy exploits Black poor people, the policy exploits at the intersection of elitist and racist policies—a policy intersection of class racism. When we racialize classes, support racist policies against those race-classes, and justify them by racist ideas, we are engaging in class racism. To be antiracist is to root the economic disparities between the equal race-classes in policies, not people” (p. 195). Here we go. As individuals, it is our responsibility to our fellow human beings to join together to change the system. We must outnumber the racists; we must drown out their voices and their votes; we must elect representatives that put the bulk of the citizenry first, not the upper-crust, nor their personal coffers or reins of power; we must advocate for laws that at the very least monitor and label the dissemination of disinformation; we must hold the digital oligarchs accountable for their complicity in spreading lies to the gullible, so legitimate media organizations can again be trusted. It will take incredible, long-term tenacity to make this happen.

Not too long ago I took a grad-level history course taught by a Chilean-American professor on the “History of Slavery in the Americas”, back when a Black man was our President. At that time, many of us thought we were on a positive path beyond all the evil -isms. We have since been proven painfully wrong. The concept of race and the creation of Capitalism go hand-in-hand at the European “discovery” of the Americas, and continues in horrible ways today, which Kendi emphasizes, summarizing like so:

“I keep using the term ‘anticapitalist’ as opposed to socialist or communist to include the people who publicly or privately question or loathe capitalism but do not identify as socialist or communist. I use ‘anticapitalist’ because conservative defenders of capitalism regularly say their liberal and socialist opponents are against capitalism. They say efforts to provide a safety net for all people are ‘anticapitalist.’ They say attempts to prevent monopolies are ‘anticapitalist.’ They say efforts to strengthen weak unions and weaken exploitative owners are ‘anticapitalist.’ They say plans to normalize worker ownership and regulations protecting consumers, workers, and environments from big business are ‘anticapitalist.’ They say laws taxing the richest more than the middle class, redistributing pilfered wealth, and guaranteeing basic incomes are ‘anticapitalist.’ They say wars to end poverty are ‘anticapitalist.’ They say campaigns to remove the profit motive from essential life sectors like education, healthcare, utilities, mass media, and incarceration are ‘anticapitalist.’

In doing so, these conservative defenders are defining capitalism. They define capitalism as the freedom to exploit people into economic ruin; the freedom to assassinate unions; the freedom to prey on unprotected consumers, workers, and environments; the freedom to value quarterly profits over climate change; the freedom to undermine small businesses and cushion corporations; the freedom from competition; the freedom not to pay taxes; the freedom to heave the tax burden onto the middle and lower classes; the freedom to commodify everything and everyone; the freedom to keep poor people poor and middle-income people struggling to stay middle income, and make rich people richer. The history of capitalism—of world warring, classing, slave trading, enslaving, colonizing, depressing wages, and dispossessing lands and labor and resources and rights—bears out the conservative definition of capitalism” (pp. 205-6).

“Racist ideas love believers, not thinkers” (p. 156). Changing the system of racism starts with each of us as individuals, and this comes from some deep self-awareness, some Jungian psycho-analyses, and historical elucidation. Kendi in a way makes a modeling of that personal delving as he takes us thorough his life lessons, unravels his hypocrisies, challenges concepts and theories, studies history and writers, and sleuths through the quandary of systemic racism over the past decades. This is not an easy undertaking, since I was made aware of my own racism towards other Caucasians I typically broad-brush as “rednecks”. It is a form of self-hate. I should not despise the people as a group; it’s the power-players (upbringings, education, communities, policies, media) that foment such ideologies in individuals, that forge the fear and anger and ignorance, and infects this country—as much as the world—with backwards-facing devolution, all while profiting somehow from the sowing of such sad seeds. I can despise individuals because of the choices they make, the screeds they scream, the policies and people they defend, just as much as someone can despise me for typing these words into Amazon’s server farm and believing what I believe. There are reasons behind all actions, and empathy helps us understand what motivates anyone to act like they do. The prime point Dr. Kendi is emphasizing here is to find equality amongst all of us on some base level. “With ethnic racism, no one wins, except the racist power at the top. As with all racism, that is the entire point” (p. 87). Nobody is hoping for some Shangri-La-like Eden in America here. What I think Kendi (and I) would like to see is a world where wanton greed and rabid selfishness are transformed into empathy and collective community, where the lower classes are cared for, where Maslow’s hierarchy is sought and fulfilled, that everyone is treated as an individual no matter what color their skin is, what tax bracket they fall within, what occupation they define themselves by, what possessions they covet. United we stand, and divided we fall. Racism keeps us tragically divided.

Perhaps in a hundred years we’ll have quality education for all kids, universal and proactive healthcare for all people, a universal basic income to eradicate poverty, the resources available to help all single parents, and guaranteed jobs for all who want one. Huh, maybe that is too Eden-like to dream of.

#blacklivesmatter #how to be an antiracist #bookreview

[sparksnevadas]

YES SCAR NEEDS TO BE IN THE CREW!! I was thinking of maybe he's like Usopp with the whole H0tguy thing goin on?? Also 100% a smooth talker, he rather talk out of his way rather than using his bow, and get this. It works everytime he does it wjdjdj. Also he is 100% a historian as well cause, man LOVES history about everything. So he can help the navigator in case they need to know if the place they are harbor on is safe or nah.

And honestly yes, i was bit hesitant to put Grian as the leader too cause, him?? Leading?? Yes but no LMAO. Maybe Mumbo can be captain instead? And yes, Joe will 100% be the musician cause them and Brooke just radiates the same vibes wudjdjsj

AND YES CLEO AS THE ASSASSIN/ARCHITECT!! LIKE ROBIN!! And Iskall is 100% navigator, and also their treasurer cause the crew gotta have someone who knows how to keep their money in check wjxjsjz more often than not, this guy always manages to find a way to get their money in check despite their constant use wjdjd

Maybe Stress will be their medic team?? Idk she just radiates healer vibes to me.

Gods so many brain worms wjdjdjd

- purp anon

PURP??????? HELLO THIS IS SO GOOD??

scar as the sharpshooter seems so obvious in retrospect, like OF COURSE!!! sharpshooter with a gun, handy with canons, trying to cozy up with the captain and maybe one day become a first mate? also i think historian is an interesting take! it'd require him to read a lot, so maybe that's something he did in the past, maybe he's a duo with cubfan? not that scar isn't smart, but that he'd much rather bs his way out of things than SHOW that he's smart yknow? like he appears dumb, smooth talks so much that people underestimate him, and then BAM, he knows three other languages fluently. he can gather info from locals so easily. Maybe cub and stress can be the doctors on the ship? with cub being more of a like mad scientist and stress just being okay with blood so shes in charge of more gorey injuries or something (<-- im not too familiar with stress)

iskall as treasurer and navigator makes a lot of sense considering vault hunters. maybe hes an adventurer at heart, and he just so happened to find himself recruited.

god this is so rambly, literally typing straight from the brain here.

also i think itd be funny if mumbo keeps getting glimpses of Grumbot as a spirit but literally everyone thinks he's going mad. Grian even orders him to go to cub/stress for a check up. But later on, mumbo gets injured and everyone is sitting at his bedside holding their breath for him to wake up. And then they spot him, a little child holding mumbos hand, squeezing their eyes shut, squeeking the same way the wood on the ship squeeks. and they rub their eyes and Grumbot disappears. but they all swear they saw it: a little child ghost with mumbos mustache (and maybe grian's feathers if he has wings)

speaking of which, if this is really a op au,,,, devil fruits are a whole other can of worms

#purp anon!!!!!!!! #talking to friends