#i hate studying the american revolution

[werewolfetone]

1798 isn't an event/period that's very well known outside of Ireland in my experience & as someone who does not live in Ireland who studies it it's always so wild when someone starts talking to me about radicals fighting against England in the 1700s & it becomes clear that they ONLY mean, like, the American Revolution. babygirl I know so much about almost completely unrelated radicals who each individually hated England more than the entire 13 colonies combined that you could not even imagine

#no hate to people who study the american revolution btw. amrev mutuals i love you #1798 rebellion #american revolution #jory.txt

[communistkenobi]

what are some of your favorite nonfiction podcasts?

the big one I recommend is just king things - two marxist academics go through the books of Stephen King in publication order. extremely funny and insightful podcast, very accessible (like this is not a theory podcast or anything, it’s very laid back and casual), and I really appreciate their approach to literary criticism.

game studies study buddies is by the same hosts as just king things but this is a theory podcast. Each episode they go over and discuss a book from the field of game studies (ie the academic study of games). I very much recommend you listen to this if you want to like passively absorb critical/leftist theory. The hosts are academics, one of which teaches about games regularly as a professor, so it kind of feels like someone is teaching you about a text. I find it fairly accessible, I learn a lot about games, and as I said they very frequently structure their discussions with left wing theory. I find them very insightful!

blowback is very good, it’s about the imperial history of the United States. a history/journalist type podcast. this can get extremely heavy and difficult to listen to given the subject matter so I would not binge this (I usually listen to it when I’m doing a physical activity) but it’s a really good source of historical information and has helped me develop my political understanding of modern western imperial history. each season covers a different event: S1 is the invasion of Iraq, S2 is the Cuban Revolution, S3 is the Korean War, S4 is the invasion of Afghanistan

ALAB (all lawyers are bad) is good with some caveats. It’s a podcast by a bunch of lawyers who spend a lot of time on twitter discussing how horrible lawyers are, usually either focusing on specific high-profile lawyers (Kavanaugh, Dershowitz), specific american legal regimes (anti-BDS legislation, sanction law, etc), or specific trends in the legal system that causes structural problems (eg lifetime judgeship appointments with no mandatory retirement age). They also sometimes do random funny lawsuits or cover legal responses to events like Jan 6th. A mixed bag in terms of focus but mostly it’s hating on American law and the legal system. This is a critical recommendation because it’s a bunch of lawyers dudes riffing and some of their analysis can be stupid/bad, they say stupid shit that comes off as “anti identity politics” at times, etc. I’m pulling from memory because it’s been a while since I listened to them so I’m sorry if this is overly vague/general. The best way to describe it is chapo-adjacent if that means anything to you lol

and finally the podcast knowledge fight. this is a podcast dedicated to covering and debunking Alex Jones. in all honesty I don’t find this podcast super valuable in terms of analysis, like they are only really focused on debunking the claims Jones makes and explaining why they’re factually wrong. Which like that’s a good thing to do, I’m not saying its bad, but I don’t really need to be convinced Jones is lying about everything lol so I don’t personally find it super useful/insightful. If you have to interact with Alex Jones fans regularly (like family members) then maybe that will be more valuable for you! Totally depends. however the reason I bring them up is because I DO recommend the series of episodes they have titled formulaic objections - in this series they go through all the deposition material from the sandy hook lawsuit against Alex Jones (the one that cost him a billion dollars in damages and court sanctions lol). They play clips of the depositions throughout these episodes, which are so fucking insane to listen to. Like listening to a bunch of employees of an insane fringe right wing media organisation being questioned by lawyers for hours on end is so entertaining lmao. This lawsuit is about the sandy hook school shooting so a warning about the subject matter, it can get dark at times, but on the whole it’s extremely fucking funny to listen to. And the hosts provide a lot of context for what’s going on in the lawsuit, talk about it, and also they debunk the shit Jones lies about in court that you may not know about, so I find that part of it really good.

#asks #hope that helps !

[frevandrest]

There had been a number of questionable takes recently regarding the Frev in the past few days that came in succession . Do you reckon if works in the past decades or so that were published in France and were made available to English readers would it may have at least mitigated such thing to ever happen or is the black legend so ingrained that even with the idea of an era where works by Belissa et Al were in circulation in English to people outside France, the result would be the same?

Before I reply, I need to make a disclaimer that I am not the best person to answer this question. I arrive from a very different educational tradition (neither Anglo nor French), and I actually discovered embarrassingly late about the whole black legend and the fact that, among some, the French Revolution was considered a horrible event (that failed). I was taught it was an event that changed the world forever (and helped shape the world today, mostly in a positive sense) and that it has to be studied to understand our world. So I am not the best person to judge the effect of the black legend vs new historiography. If others have more informed takes, please tell us; I am super interested. Now, the bad (as in, incorrect) takes we get here. They happen periodically, and they tend to be very similar, often by people claiming (and I have no reason to doubt them) that they are taking history courses on frev, typically in the USA. So these takes tell me about the state of teaching frev in the USA (Anglo?) sphere. Which is not necessarily the same as "what experts publish in academic articles", because - not sure if people are aware of it, so I need to emphasize - you do not have to be an expert on a topic to teach it at the university level. You typically need a PhD in the discipline, but not necessarily on the topic of the course you teach. I can imagine that they won't give a frev course to someone with a PhD in, say, antiquity, but "early modern period" is good enough, even if you are not an expert on France or the revolution.

Sorry for this preamble; I swear it is related to your question. What I mean is that these specific takes we saw here seem to me (though I could be wrong) not necessarily a product of current English-language academia on frev, but what students are taught. So yes, it is a good question on what kind of books students are given on the mandatory readings list, and if those teaching are even aware of the most current English-language books on the topic (let alone French). I swear most of this stuff is so dated and proven to be incorrect over and over again. We had someone a few months ago saying they read Carlyle for their frev class. ?? This is really strange to me, especially in the North American academia, where even books that are considered new-ish elsewhere, are seen as old, so why teach something published in early 19c? Unless you want to demonstrate changed attitudes about frev and discuss historiography, propaganda, etc. which doesn't seem to be the case. Those assigning such readings are teaching what they feel is true. So I can only guess that they never bothered to read newer stuff. Look. I am all for authors not liking the French Revolution or specific things in it (I am critical of many frev stuff myself), but you have to use current sources that go through earlier misconceptions. We can't still be stuck at "dictator Robespierre who ruled France", a thing that was disproven so long ago and no credible historian believes in (even if they hate Robespierre).

Now, this is about teaching history at the university level and not about experts in academia, because I do think most incorrect takes we get here on tumblr are from students. Experts sticking to the black legend and "horrible horror of the revolution that failed anyway and didn't achieve anything" are a different group. Though I am not an expert on the current historiography to judge it in detail. So, if someone reading this knows more and can explain, please share!

#ask #anonymous #frev #french revolution

[lizbethborden]

Hi again! Yeah, from your bookshelf! You seem well informed and I wanna know the type of stuff you read and might recommend. I don't even know what to tell you for my interests because I feel like I'm just begining. Sorry I'm young and dumb still haha.

#1 you're not dumb and #2 nothing to apologize for :)

Here's some books I've got on my shelves or that I've read:

Men Who Hate Women: From Incels to Pickup Artists, Laura Bates

Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights, Katha Pollitt

Women, Race, & Class, Angela Davis

American Girls, Nancy Jo Sales

Lesbian Culture: An Anthology, eds. Julia Penelope and Susan J Wolf

Lesbian Studies, Margaret Cavendish

Hood Feminism, Mikki Kendall

Against White Feminism, Rafia Zakaria

Sister and Brother: Lesbians and Gay Men Write About Their Lives Together, eds Joan Nestle and John Preston

Another Mother Tongue, Judy Grahn

Aimee & Jaguar, Erica Fischer

Mouths of Rain: An Anthology of Black Lesbian Thought, ed. Briona Simone Jones

Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, John Boswell

The Mary Daly Reader, eds. Jennifer Rycenga and Linda Barufaldi

Hidden from History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past, eds. Martin Duberman, Martha Vicinus, George Chauncey Jr.

Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society, Cordelia Fine

Speaking Freely: Unlearning the Lies of the Father's Tongue, Julia Penelope

The Resisting Reader, Judith Fetterley

The Double X Economy, Linda Scott

Not That Bad: Dispatches from Rape Culture, ed. Roxane Gay

Home Grown: How Domestic Violence Turns Men Into Terrorists, Joan Smith

Intercourse, Andrea Dworkin

The Trials of Nina McCall: Sex, Surveillance, and the Decades-Long Government Plan to Imprison "Promiscuous" Women, Scott Stern

The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory, Marilyn Frye

Only Words, Catharine A. Mackinnon

Everything Below the Waist: Why Health Care Needs a Feminist Revolution, Jennifer Block

Witchcraze: A New History of the European Witch Hunts, Anne Llwellyn Barstow

Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Frontlines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture, Peggy Orenstein

Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, Caroline Criado-Perez

Lesbian Ethics: Toward New Values, Sarah Lucia Hoagland

We Were Feminists Once: From Riot Grrrl to CoverGirl, the Buying and Selling of a Political Movement, Andi Zeisler

Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution, Adrienne Rich

On Lies, Secrets, and Silence: Selected Prose, Adrienne Rich

Feminism, Animals, and Science: The Naming of the Shrew, Lynda Birke

The Female Body in Western Culture: Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Susan Rubin Suleiman

Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, Gloria Anzaldua

Flesh Wounds: The Culture of Cosmetic Surgery, Virginia L Blum

Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, Patricia Hill Collins

Pornland: How Porn has Hijacked our Sexuality, Gail Dines

Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, Susan Faludi

From Eve to Dawn: A History of Women in the World, Marilyn French

This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color, eds. Cherrie Moraga and Gloria Anzaldua

Seeing Like a Feminist, Nivedita Menon

With Her Machete In Her Hand: Reading Chicana Lesbians, Catriona Reuda Esquibel

The Disappearing L: Erasure of Lesbian Spaces and Culture, Bonnie J. Morris

Foundlings: Lesbian and Gay Historical Emotion before Stonewall, Christopher Nealon

The Persistent Desire: A Butch/Femme Reader, ed. Joan Nestle

The Straight Mind and Other Essays, Monique Wittig

The Trouble Between us: An Uneasy History of White and Black Women in the Feminist Movement, Winifred Breines

Right-Wing Women, Andrea Dworkin

Woman Hating, Andrea Dworkin

Why I Am Not A Feminist, Jessica Crispin

Sapphistries: A Global History of Love Between Women, Leila J Rupp

I tried to avoid too many left turns into my specific interests although if you passionately want to know any of those, I can make you some more lists LOL

I would suggest picking a book that sounds interesting and using the footnotes and bibliography to find more to read. I've done that a lot :) a lot of my books have more sticky tabs or w/e in the bibliography than in the text so I don't lose stuff I'm interested in.

Hope this helps!

[arthur-r]

on my way to academic advising appointment and i’m so scared. cause like i am NOT good at being a history major, like it’s the most applicable major to my goals i THINK but i’m not like a lyndon b. johnson nerd if that makes sense?? like i’m interested in history on a lot more of a local and personal level, or at the same time a holistic and universal level?? i would do anthropology if it weren’t for not actually fitting anthropology either and hating their classes worse too. i’m looking at minoring in folklore which is kind of getting there, and i’m interested in the history classes my school has to offer but i just kind of know that i’m doing it wrong. like public history classes in curation and presentation aren’t really the point. history of librarianship is supposed to be supplemental to NORMAL history. i want to major in historical identity. i want to major in how history is preserved and engaged with and identified with or rejected. and that’s what a fucking history major is but it’s just not quite right. and i don’t want to talk to some weird old white man about why i’m looking at latin + folklore + queer visual culture + geographic information systems as potentially being my four classes next semester which are NONE OF THEM HISTORY. if i take history next semester it will be history of technology or history of education. WHICH IS FUCKING HISTORY. i guess i just feel so guilty for not actually being that interested in political economy. and like come ON i’m actually so fucking engaged in the real kind of history too, i’ve been studying immigration history and being so fucking invested. i HAVE OPINIONS about lyndon b johnson (i fucking hate that man like thanks for passing civil rights but that’s a bare minimum and he used it as a way to sneak in the permanent existence of an undocumented labor class of latin americans to uphold capitalism through exploitation and fear. so FUCK YOU LBJ) but anyway the point is the intersection of everything i want to do with my life all branches off of history. but it’s just not really that simple. i’m glad i’m at the school i chose and not in colorado but it sure would be handy to be getting a fucking BACHELOR OF INNOVATION in museum studies and heritage management. instead of just hanging around the in-between, taking the most incredible classes but living in the unfortunate reality where they all count for different, tangentially related fields of study. anyway the stupid advisor man is probably a really good guy. i just feel so embarrassed showing up to his office like “yeah i’m studying history. i don’t know what years were the french revolution” you know???? anyway next semester i’ll be taking a class about public folklore (coolest thing in the world) and third level latin, and then maybe something for science breadth, maybe a history class about education or technology or MAYBE the history of the american west, which just might not be very relevant to me if i stay in the midwest shdhdf like i’m so interested in mexican-american history but i’m centralizing pretty heavily in midwestern migrant experiences which are less studied and more personally relevant, and “the west” is mostly like the gold rush and stuff anyway. which i’m supposed to be INTERESTED IN as a history major but i’m not really!!!! and i might take a class about making websites and databases because i want to, and maybe a class about the history of textiles because that’s so fucking cool. but this isn’t what they WANT from me so i’m really anxious. somebody just looked at me weird for walking out of the women’s restroom and it made me think about how the problem is that my academic interests are nonbinary i’m fucking careerqueer or something AKA indecisive and weird and unemployable. but also the coolest in the world. ANYWAY wish me luck and i got this. but spooky scary!!!!

#vent cw #college talk #THIS IS SO STUPID but i just feel like the academic advisor is gonna hate me…. #like it’s FINE this is a bachelor of arts it’s okay to be a weird little humanities kid it’s FINE #i just feel a bit strange. ok appointment in twelve minutes gonna head upstairs wish me luck!! #me. my post. mine. #delete later #long post #PS sorry for being a little strange past few days it’s cause i haven’t been sleeping. will be normal tomorrow if all goes well

[therealvinelle]

What are your thoughts on Garret’s speech in breaking dawn

To those who don't remember, Garrett gives a rousing speech to those gathered where he explains that the Volturi are the bloody English tyrants who hate freedom and the Cullens are hobbits.

Aro, Caius, and Marcus have learned that Renesmee is no immortal child, but they have no guarantee she won't be dangerous in some way later on. No one does.

Garrett steps up to witness for the Cullens, which in itself is an interesting decision this late in the trial. He hasn't observed anything about Renesmee that Aro hasn't, and he can no more guarantee that she won't be dangerous than anybody else in the clearing can.

This of course is no problem for Garrett, because to him the point isn't whether Renesmee is dangerous or not, but that he has a personal vendetta. His speech isn't addressed to the Volturi, but to everyone else, as he explains how the Volturi hate freedom and people who are different, and they want to kill the Cullens because of the diet. The speech quickly descends into American Revolution rhetoric and Garrett threatening the Volturi.

I think this is one of those posts where if I don't pull out the actual text you people will think I'm exaggerating or misrepresent Garrett, and also because I had genuinely forgotten how insane it was .

Feast your eyes on Garrett's slightly abbreviated speech (slightly abbreviated because the guy just kept going):

These ancient ones did not come here for justice as they told you. We suspected as much, and now it has been proved. They came, misled, but with a valid excuse for their action. Witness now as they seek flimsy excuses to continue their true mission. Witness them struggle to find a justification for their true purpose—to destroy this family here.

The Volturi come to erase what they perceive as the competition. Perhaps, like me, you look at this clan’s golden eyes and marvel. They are difficult to understand, it’s true. But the ancient ones look and see something besides their strange choice. They see power. (Breaking Dawn, page 454)

This is just the beginning, but it's not a speech you give if you want to deescalate the situation. This is a call to arms.

Garrett goes on to explain how the Cullens may be weird freaks, but it's okay because their quaint little way of life is actually quite peaceful and noble. And if it sounds like Garrett is describing hobbits then that's because judging by this speech, that's how he views them.

I... did not remember this was the context for his "They love each other more than we can understand" blurb. God, turns out Garrett was just channeling Arthur Weasley. "I've made a little study of them!"

I have witnessed the bonds within this family—I say family and not coven. These strange golden-eyed ones deny their very natures. But in return have they found something worth even more, perhaps, than mere gratification of desire? I’ve made a little study of them in my time here, and it seems to me that intrinsic to this intense family binding—that which makes them possible at all—is the peaceful character of this life of sacrifice. There is no aggression here like we all saw in the large southern clans that grew and diminished so quickly in their wild feuds. There is no thought for domination. And Aro knows this better than I do. (454)

Aro is me in this interaction:

I watched Aro’s face as Garrett’s words condemned him, waiting tensely for some response. But Aro’s face was only politely amused, as if waiting for a tantrum-throwing child to realize that no one was paying attention to his histrionics. (454)

Yes, Bella, that's exactly what he's doing. There are no grand points being made here, there's just Garrett telling everybody that he thinks Carlisle is a hobbit while Carlisle is on trial for having created an immortal child. Garrett was called in to witness saying this wasn't the case, but Garrett doesn't want to do that. Garrett want to incite an insurrection instead.

I can't stress that part enough, Garrett makes a speech that essentially boils down to "We can't tolerate the Volturi ruling over us". Renesmee aside, Garrett just gave the Volturi a very good reason to destroy the Cullens.

He then makes it worse.

Carlisle assured us all, when he told us what was coming, that he did not call us here to fight. These witnesses”—Garrett pointed to Siobhan and Liam—“agreed to give evidence, to slow the Volturi advance with their presence so that Carlisle would get the chance to present his case.

But some of us wondered”—his eyes flashed to Eleazar’s face—“if Carlisle having truth on his side would be enough to stop the so-called justice. Are the Volturi here to protect the safety of our secrecy, or to protect their own power? Did they come to destroy an illegal creation, or a way of life? Could they be satisfied when the danger turned out to be no more than a misunderstanding? Or would they push the issue without the excuse of justice? (454)

"You thought some of us came here to fight, not witness. And you were right!"

I want to know what Carlisle was thinking this entire time.

And I can't stress enough, Garrett is saying the above without any proof. Aro says, "We don't know what hybrids are and have no guarantee Renesmee couldn't become a danger", Garrett says this proves his corruption and ascribes the motive as being the Cullens' diet.

Garrett then wraps up his speech, and... uh:

So now there are more questions, questions that you must answer. Who rules you, nomads? Do you answer to someone’s will besides your own? Are you free to choose your path, or will the Volturi decide how you will live?

I came to witness. I stay to fight. The Volturi care nothing for the death of the child. They seek the death of our free will. (454)

I... uh.

Carlisle, I'm sure is breathing into a paper bag at this point.

And I'm left with the impression that Garrett has spent the past three centuries feeling very revolutionary but not having anyone to revolution against, so now that he's finally got the Volturi he's gonna revolution them so hard.

The Volturi never told anyone how to live. Vampires can do whatever they want, just don't expose the secret. The Volturi never had a problem with the animal diet, their leader has been friends with Carlisle for centuries and was pleased to hear Carlisle had found a coven of like-minded. There are no taxes, no institutions, if you want to live your life never interacting with the Volturi then you can. Garrett is fabricating an oppressor so he'll have someone to fight, which the Cullens never even asked him to do.

Garrett ends his speech on an explicit threat to the Volturi and trying to intimidate their witnesses into joining him, deliberately trying to turn this into a fight even though the Cullens only asked him to stand as a witness and made it clear they wanted a peaceful resolution.

“You might consider joining us. If you think the Volturi will let you live to tell this tale, you are mistaken. We may all be destroyed”—he shrugged—“but then again, maybe not. Perhaps we are on more equal footing than they know. Perhaps the Volturi have finally met their match. I promise you this, though—if we fall, so do you.” (455)

My thoughts on Garrett's speech is that the Cullens never should have invited him.

(Since the guy somehow kept going, feast your eyes on him antagonizing Aro:

He ended his heated speech by stepping back to Kate’s side and then sliding forward in a half-crouch, prepared for the onslaught. Aro smiled. “A very pretty speech, my revolutionary friend.” Garrett remained poised for attack. “Revolutionary?” he growled. “Who am I revolting against, might I ask? Are you my king? Do you wish me to call you master, too, like your sycophantic guard?” “Peace, Garrett,” Aro said tolerantly. “I meant only to refer to your time of birth. Still a patriot, I see.” Garrett glared back furiously. (455)

In which Garrett, having just made a call to revolution, tries to catch Aro on having called him revolutionary. Praise be to Aro for not falling for the bait.

Just........

Rock on, Garrett.)

#garrett #breaking dawn debacle #book quotes #twilight #twilight meta #twilight renaissance #anti garrett #aro

[woodsfae]

I have so many WIPs right now....here's the ones I've been working on the most lately. Which one would you be most excited to see posted?* Expanded descriptions of fics posted below the poll!

*I make no promises about which fic will be posted first, or indeed, at all.

Mr Darcy wakes up the morning after his wedding and is astonished to discover that it is now, inexplicably, the day before he promised to join Bingley at his new estate, Netherfield. He soon decides that, as long as he is forced to relive this part of his life, he may as well woo Elizabeth Bennet without all the bumps in the road they had to overcome. But despite his best efforts, he only seems to offend Miss Elizabeth Bennet.

Mrs Bennet has hyperemesis gravidarum and so Mr Bennet is forced by circumstances to take a more active role in his older daughters' lives. Raised as an only child who loathed going away to school and took solace in his books, his idea of appropriate child rearing is a largely based on how he would have liked to be raised balanced against how much he can tolerate piping, toddler voices invading his study.

Due to a few, small shifts, Elizabeth decides to take a chance on behalf of her family and accepts Mr Darcy's first proposal. The road to love isn't any less bumpy, but the bumps are mostly different.

asioaf: it might be easier to list what hasn't been changed. The Changes Themselves are kick-started by a series of visions that come upon everyone living in the year that Aerys burns Rickard and Brandon Stark. Multi-PoV. The main PoV is meant to follow Lyarra Snow, bastard of Lord Eddard Stark. My main complaints which I am fixing include: lazy worldbuilding (winters, crops); G.R.R. Martin's obnoxious Hobbesian philosphy; G.R.R. Martin's obnoxious sexism (fewer Moms are dead in my version!); and more! Elia lives. This is already long as fuuuuuuuck and would probably take the longest for me to start posting.

In a world with retrocausality, a small change in the Original Trilogies timeline reverberates up and down history, resulting in a Mandalorian Jedi Ben Mereel meeting seven year old Anakin Skywalker on Tattooine.

When Anakin Skywalker follows his visions to Tattooine to prevent his mother's death, he gets caught in a sandstorm which spits him out twenty years earlier. Due to the Force being Insistent, he remains on Tattooine and starts several revolutions.

A sort of self insert goes to sleep by a Big Rock while out backpacking and wakes up by a recognizable Portal Stone in the middle of the Caralain Grass. Shenanigans ensue.

Why does Perrin have the trauma and reflexes of an American Vietnam War veteran? What would happen if some of the characters talked to each other a little more frequently with slightly fewer assumptions? Did you hate how branders*n flattened every structural problem into a shallow issue to be fixed with a better leader? Me too! This will likely take at least a year before I start posting.

#fandom #fanfiction #polls #woodsfae

[redladypaige]

@shonpota asks what I learned in Israeli school

What I learned in Israeli school is..

WHAT I LEARNED IN ISRAELI SCHOOL IS

honestly you're going to be disappointed

tl;dr it's not explicitly hateful, it's much more about emphasizing certain facts and ignoring others to create a narrative and lie by omission.

I don't think it's very different than other western education, but you'll be the judge of that.

I'll try to explain if it makes sense.

First of all, I studied in public school almost a decade ago (jesus), so things might have changed.

So this is the least religious education you can get. More religious schools have been caught with more explicitly hateful material, but that I can't tell you first hand.

Arabic class

From seventh to ninth grade you have mandatory Arabic in school.

Since it's such a short time you really only learn the basics.

The class doesn't really count towards your diploma grade, so you just have to pass it, so most people don't really take it seriously.

There are optional advanced classes to take later on, which in my case were took by Arab Israelis, people with interest in languages and people who wanted to be translators in the IDF.

Civics class

Mostly dry stuff about the system of government, how democracy works, elections, rigjts, stuff like that.

There is big talk about equal rights, mostly mentioning that women had equal rights by law since the founding and that Arab Israelis are regular citizens with equal rights.

Gaza and the west bank weren't mentioned at all, at least when I learned. This is stuff you learn from the news or from your parents.

And of course nothing about systemic racism or anything like that.

You can say that the class shows the ideal clean version of the vision of democracy without actually diving down to what's happening.

Putting "politics in school" is a very controversial subject over here, which I found similar to what's going on with the critical race theory thing in the USA.

Right wingers are in power for a while (and it's getting worse), and for them anything that puts Israel in not a great like is political and should be removed, though it is sometimes used against them too.

It constantly changes and stuff gets added and removed.

Tanach class

It might surprise you that even in secular schools you learn the Tanach (the old testament for you Christians) from first to twelfth grade.

It might surprise you more that we learn it not as a religious text, but much more of an historical one.

It was one of my favorite classes because it actually felt like it encourages skepticism and analysis.

There is talk about how the Torah was probably written by different authors because of contradictions which is literally sacreligous

We talked about which stories are or aren't corroborated by history, how to know about the author by the perspective of the text, events written on from different points of view, etc.

History class

You learn history from first to twelfth grade.

It's very very western.

Starting from Greek to Rome to the middle ages, enlightenment, the French and american revolutions and world wars.

Colonialism is displayed as neutral I guess - just an event that happened. Remember that they don't want opinionated teachers.

We gloss over stuff like slavery and native American genocide when learning about the us, its mostly the revolution and stuff.

Sometimes history from a specific place rotates in, but the rest of the world is mostly reserved for the optional advanced classes.

Of course, there is a big emphasis to ties to Judaism throughout.

Within those periods you learn about what the Jews were up to, usually under the lens of how the current ruler abused them.

World war 2 and the Holocaust obviously is a huge chunk of the material.

You don't get to modern history until like the 10th grade.

And then it's mostly the narrative of the creation of Israel, again viewed neutrally.

It starts from the Dreyfus trial, which had a Jewish officer been accused for a crime he didn't commit.

That caused a reporter named Herzel to think Jews will always be persecuted and to start the Zionist movement with the idea to find a homeland for the Jewish people.

We learn about different proposals for where it could be, raising money, the first Alyot (people who came to Israel to live there).

The Alyot are presented as good things generally, saying that the lands were legally bought and that the people wanted to live side by side with the Palestinians.

Of course the reality is more complicated than that.

We get the Balfour statement, explaining how it's the first time Jews got international recognition for a country but also how it's really non committal.

We learn the efforts to get a country against the British, both the diplomatic and the terrorist actions the early Israeli organizations did.

We learn about the UN division plan, with saying that the Jewish people were happy to share but Palestinians won't come to the negotiations table.

We talk about the declaration of independence when the British left, and how we were immediately attacked by the casus belli of killing all jews by all surrounding countries and still won at the end.

The atrocities of the war aren't mentioned at all.

The Nacba is mentioned, with the word it self constantly getting in and out from the books every year, but it's mentioned subjectively.

As in, "the Palestinians see the events of this war, when Israel took territory in a defensive war and people had to leave their houses as a day of tragedy with the intention to one day return" or something like this.

We learn about immigration after the Holocaust and Mizrahis from Arab countries (like me),surprisingly not shying away from the racism.

The narrative is "there might have been racism then, but now we are all a melting pot of a single culture" or something.

It gets as far as the Six Day War and Yom Kippur war at 1973, anything beyond that is not covered in school.

The main narrative we see about Palestinians is that most of them do want peace and are happy to live side by side with the Israelis, but every time their radical leadership hated their own people, and won't take any compromise.

They want to kill all Israelis and take everything, and Israel is only defending itself.

You can say that's the most radical narrative we learn.

There is little exploration of why, the assumption is anti semetism.

Every war is presented as justified and as part for Israels quest for peace, while being the constant victim.

Inner Palestinian politics aren't discussed, we don't learn their history, their views etc.

That's it I guess?

Feel free to ask anything and I'll try to remember

#israel #palestine #history #school

[beardedmrbean]

Wait I thought that First Nations is a proper term we use now to describe Native Americans?

Ugh

Also yeah the learning thing

It’s not like our education system is outdated as hell

Or being run by out of touch politicians

Perhaps you can find the link, but I heard that the public education system was changed in the 90’s for specifically to cater to neurotypical girls

Teachers unions are corrupted up the ass

But as I mentioned before that thanks to DNA ancestry test, we know black Americans of slave descent are 64% Yoruba

Yet despite one of the biggest gaming franchise Assassin’s Creed is based off pseudo surrounding it

And I’m not lying

The British Museum and the Smithsonian used assassin creed games for a Alexander the Great event and to visual the American Revolution in a sector

Imagine telling yourself 20 years ago that games would reach such levels?

Also when was dna ancestry known to the public

But anyways, one thing that perhaps other black Americans can help me with. Is that we when it comes to history, all we know about the old world is that we were enslaved

Keep in mind that I only learn about the Yoruba because of Hollywood fuck up

So imagine how HARD it’s going to explain community…who literary rates ain’t exactly the best

Okay there a saying I heard (paraphrasing) “If they ain’t going to teach you right. You think they’re going to treat you right?!”

Also perhaps in the evening as I notice something with a lot of stuff surrounding government in the 80’s-90’s media

I was trying to say the whole “Why we weren’t taught this in school” started with SJWs millennials in the early 2010’s

I’m just wondering how bad sjws critical thinking skills are when they never connected the dots that people who run the education system have their hands in the military industrial complex as well

Killary anyone?

It works, there's a screenshot floats round from a kids textbook that people try to pass of as HS talking about, well.

Every time it pops up we get dozens of people whining about the US education system until it's pointed out that, one it says "First Nations" which is the official way Canada says it (US is Native American) and two it says Quebec City in the bottom right center.

Outside of official things I don't think it matters which you use provided everyone knows what you're talking about.

Snopes actually covered this one, didn't need to but it was a opportunity to bash Europeans so they took it.

Perhaps you can find the link, but I heard that the public education system was changed in the 90’s for specifically to cater to neurotypical girls

I don't have a link on that one, nothing is turning up either but it is something that I've seen stated, also seen loads of studies showing that single sex classes turn out more capable students. Fairly well established that guys and girls learn differently so that makes sense.

The British Museum and the Smithsonian used assassin creed games for a Alexander the Great event and to visual the American Revolution in a sector. Imagine telling yourself 20 years ago that games would reach such levels?

That's rad, 20 years ago I'd have believed it, 30 jamin on my SNES not so much.

Also when was dna ancestry known to the public

Not sure, let's learn together

"Affordable" is the keyword there, general public wasn't doing them

But anyways, one thing that perhaps other black Americans can help me with. Is that we when it comes to history, all we know about the old world is that we were enslaved Keep in mind that I only learn about the Yoruba because of Hollywood fuck up So imagine how HARD it’s going to explain community…who literary rates ain’t exactly the best

Oakland’s rebellion against phonics set children back; let’s not repeat it

TL:DR; there was a structured phonics based curriculum that was increasing literacy rates rapidly in Oakland schools the teachers well.

Despite the obvious success of that curriculum, Weaver says teachers hated it. “This seems dehumanizing, this is colonizing, this is the man telling us what to do,” Weaver said. “So we fought tooth and nail as a teacher group to throw that out.” They succeeded, and Oakland children paid the price. Reading proficiency in the Oakland Unified School District abruptly decreased from 2014 to 2015, when the curriculum change was introduced. It hasn’t rebounded to pre-2015 levels. The district has a reading proficiency score of just 34%, well below the already stupidly low California state average of 51%.

🎉🎉🎉🎉Score a big win for decolonizing education🎉🎉🎉🎉

Also perhaps in the evening as I notice something with a lot of stuff surrounding government in the 80’s-90’s media I was trying to say the whole “Why we weren’t taught this in school” started with SJWs millennials in the early 2010’s

I said that several time actually, reading a random thing about WWI and came across the Ottoman Empire and couldn't remember learning a damn thing about them, WWI was Germany and Austria Hungary vs everyone else and for some reason this extended into Africa and the middle east but we're not going to worry too much about that.

As gaps go, that one was a doozy, you thought skipping over some random activist that did something that kicked off some movement was bad wait till you hear about the Empire that existed in the middle east, Africa, and Europe that was nearly completely left out of my history lessons.

Leaving Uzbekistan out I get, but not a 700 year old empire that our founding fathers had positive diplomatic relationships with.

Positive part was it gave me a whole bunch of stuff to learn, all on my own, without some bureaucrat deciding what was and wasn't important.

I’m just wondering how bad sjws critical thinking skills are when they never connected the dots that people who run the education system have their hands in the military industrial complex as well. Killary anyone?

Wait till you find out who helped make it so student loans couldn't be discharged through bankruptcy (biden)

The federal department of education was the beginning of the end for the US educational system and federal student loans greased the slide we're riding down.

People get mad when i say they need to be phased out, but honestly it's one of the best ways to make college affordable again imho. Just be bumpy for a decade or so till schools realize they need to stick with classes that will allow people to make a living.

Other option is make schools secure the student loans not the fed, they want their investment back they need to make a good investment.

#zoomer huey anon

[7ndipity]

Happy 2k!!! 🎉🎉🎉 I'm loving the ship game! If you're on, I'd like to try it as well 🌿✨🧡

94 liner like you, Joon and Hobi. Virgo sun, cancer moon, cap rising with uranus and neptune conjunct. I define myself as an anarchist/ communist. I'm ace but not strictly but usually yeah.

I studied linguistics and literature. I've been an astrologer, an editor, theatre teacher assistant. Now I'm a writer, researcher and translator. I speak fluently 3 languages - Portuguese, English and Spanish - and I know the basics of Korean. Still wanna learn Italian, french and arabic. I research how different social medias change out perception of the same image. My next project will probably be what's perceived as "aesthetics" on the internet.

I'm really into linguistics, philosophy and art's philosophy. I think it's insane how we're able to create meaning. I also never take anything seriously. Everything is at least a lil bit funny. I LOVE how we perceive absurdities as normalcies, I kinda collect insane stories because of this.

I love hearing new music. My favourite genres are brazilian popular music, bossa nova, light sambas, jazz, pop and hip hop. I guess I read a lot but I always say I don't know how to read cause I hate how reading is perceived as a virtue. I'm way more a poetry girlie than a prose girlie tho. I love watching comedies and I refuse to watch horror (I'm really scared of everything!!!). More of a series girlie than a movies girlie. But I find really hard connecting with animation. Only studio ghibli for me (pom poko is one of my favourite movies). I like stories about revolutionaries in love with two people at the same time but more in love with the revolution.

I draw and paint to relax. I have a series of alien snoopys in the forest that is really special to me. I love love love snoopy.

Physically, I'm 1m68cm (I don't get american measures), white, curly dark blonde hair, blue eyes, big boobs, big thighs, some belly. I'm 100% dopamine fashion and only wear sandals, even in the winter. I dance hip hop and dance hall. My favourite colours are orange and yellow.

My friends say I'm very charismatic and that I have a lot of friends/ know many people. They say it looks easy for me to make friends, but actually it's kinda hard. I have anxiety, adhd and insomnia and being around people is very energising and exhausting at the same time. It's hard to keep a balance. I'm patient until I loose it. And I have A LOT of strong and crazy opinions on random topics. My friends say I come of as super secure of myself, but I'm like 69% secure lol. I do love talking. And I really really really value my friendships. But the most important thing about me is that I'm always tired. But I'll smile and entertain you every time you come around

I would ship you with Yoongi, Namjoon, and a bit with Hobi and Jin!

You have a lot of similarities to both Yoongi and Joon, and as a Pisces and fellow Virgo, they would be very well matched with your energy. I feel like they would both find your work really interesting, and appreciate you ability to keep things from getting too serious(also, idk why, but I feel like Joon would be into blondes)

I also feel like Jin and Hobi would be rather drawn to your energy as well, Jin’s said before that he’s allergic to seriousness, so he would love your approach to things.

Hope this was okay💜

#ship game

[nordleuchten]

i have seen people from frev really hating on Lafayette and calling him shallow and a hypocrite, where does this come from may i ask?

Of course you may ask dear Anon, with regards to La Fayette you may ask me anything. :-)

La Fayette is often (and rightly so) perceived vastly different by the “Amrev-Community” than by the “Frev-Community”. It should be acknowledged that both camps are often a bit over the top with their assessment of La Fayette. He was neither that “good” nor that “bad” - that not how history works in my opinion.

But to be frank, La Fayette did not exactly covered himself in glory during the French Revolution. He often meant well … but that is not always enough.

We first have to set the stage: The French and the American Revolution are often called “sister revolutions” but whoever really studied one or both of these revolutions will probably agree with me when I say that these two events were still vastly different from each other. I think La Fayette misunderstood and miscalculated the situation during the French Revolution. La Fayette’s role in the American Revolution was a military one, there was a certain political element as well, but nothing compared to his role in the (early stages of the) French Revolution.

La Fayette was a man who placed a great importance on principles and moral concepts. He meant well but had trouble understanding why not everybody was agreeing with him - because as I said, he meant well. He was absolute determined to be a leader in this revolution but that did not quite worked out. He tried to be everywhere at once and that obviously did not work out as well.

La Fayette was a centrist, general in support of the King and the monarchy but also outspoken about reforms. Early on, such a position could be kept up but the more the revolution progressed the harder it was to follow a middle path. And La Fayette made enemies - influential, powerful, gifted enemies.

Another problem was La Fayette’s taste for fame and glory. Something that he pursued during the revolution and that can easily be twisted to make him look like a power-hungry villain.

La Fayette became the first commander of the newly established Parisian National Guard. While his command of the National Guard can generally be seen as a success in his life, the Guard also gave La Fayette a headache more than once. The National Guard could be fiercely loyal on a good day… or they threatend La Fayette to kill him. La Fayette was often accused of using the Guard as his “private army”. Especially the way he sometimes dealt with pro-revolutionary printers and journalists was criticised. There were also instances however were the nobles were uncertain if La Fayette might use his command against them.

Then there was the Champ de Mars massacre. I made a detailed post about the event here - in short, we do not exactly know what really happened that day but even if we assume the absolute best scenario, La Fayette still stands as a weak leader who had no control about his armed guard and could not prevent the death of innocent people. But the Champ the Massacre was not the only mishap with the Guard. The National Guard (and therefor) La Fayette was tasked with keeping the King and the royal family at the Tuileries Palace … but suddenly they had fled. Either La Fayette had instructed his guard to turn a blind eye (what many people believed) or the guard was simply unable to fulfil a simple task and La Fayette had not enough control over them to order them to fulfil such a task without being blinded by personal loyalties. To add insult to injury, La Fayette proclaimed that the King had been kidnapped … a completely unbelievable story.

La Fayette became so unpopular indeed that it almost was comical. Most courtiers detested him for being too revolutionary, most revolutionaries mistrusted him because he was still too friendly with the ancient regime. There was a contemporary caricature where a monarchist and a revolutionary had strung La Fayette up on a street light - while doing so they had a conversation that they both hated each other but they each hated La Fayette even more. La Fayette was forced to flee France because the leaders of the Revolution wanted to arrest him (for being anti-revolutionary), just to be captured and imprisoned by the Prussians and Austrians for being an “instigator of the Revolution”.

I give you a short excerpt from a letter La Fayette wrote to George Washington on August 23, 1790. He describes here his position and the general atmosphere in his own words - while it is a very subjective statement, it still shows all the different groups and endeavours he was connected to at the time, how things generally stood and also that he greatly miscalculated the political climate. Spoilers ahead, La Fayette thought that France would be done with the Revolution by the end of 1790 … we all know how well that went.

Now we are disturbed with Revolts among the Regiments—and as I am Constantly Attacked on Both Sides By the Aristocratic and the Factious party, I don’t know to which of the two we owe these insurrections—our Safe guard Against them Lies with the National guard—There is more than a Million of Armed Citizens—Among them Patriotism Reigns—and my influence with ’em, is as Great as if I Had Accepted the Chief Command. I Have lately lost Some of My favour with the Mob, and displeased the frantic lovers of licentiousness, as I am Bent on Establishing a legal Subordination—But the Nation at large are Very thankfull to me for it—it is Not out [of] the Heads of the Aristocrats to make a Counter Revolution—Nay, they do what they Can with all the Crowned Heads of Europe who Hate us like the devil—But I think their plans will Be either Abandonned or Unsuccessfull—I am Rather more Concerned with a division that Rages in the Popular Party—the Clubs of the jacobines, and 89 it is Called, Have divided the friends of liberty who accuse each other, jacobines Being taxed with a disorderly Extravagance, and 89 with a tincture of Ministerialism, and Ambition—I am Endeavouring to Bring about a Reconciliation—the affair of the 6th of October will Be Reported in the House Next week. I don’t think there will Be Against duke d’orleans, and am Sure there Are Not Against Mirabeau Sufficient Charges to impeach them—there is Some thing Cloudy in the Present Systems of those two men, altho’ they do not Seem Actually Connected—they are Both Cowards—But the prince most particularly So.

I Hope our Business will End with the Year—at which time this So much Blackened Cromwell, this Ambitious dictator, Your friend, Shall most deliciously Enjoy the Hapiness to Give up all power, all public Cares, and to Become A private Citizen in a free Monarchy, the Constitution of which, altho’ I Could not Help its’ Being Very defective Now, will lay a foundation for the Most Excellent one to Be Made in a few years.

“To George Washington from Lafayette, 23 August 1790,” Founders Online, National Archives, [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 6, 1 July 1790 – 30 November 1790, ed. Mark A. Mastromarino. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1996, pp. 315–319.] (05/18/2022)

In short, the Revolution, and La Fayette’s position therein, was more complex, he had more direct power and influence, there were more people who generally disliked him and he made some very questionable decisions.

La Fayette’s role in the French Revolution was too complex to give a comprehensive analysis in a single post, but I hope my answer could at least give you a first insight into the topic. I hope you have/had a great day!

#ask me anything #anon #french history #american history #american revolution #french revolution #marquis de lafayette #la fayette #letter #1790 #george washington #founders online #champ de mars massacre #politics

[mityenka]

studying for my history finals i HATE the american revolution i do NOT care about guys who start an uprising because they don’t want to pay taxes i want to go back to reading about the spartacus league and the failed german october revolution of 1923 :(

#late 19th/early 20th century history my beloved

[aceofwhump]

What's your favorite season of Outlander so far? I'm torn because I think there's something magical about the first two seasons but then the later ones have all of my favorite characters. I already miss Marsali and Fergus :(

Ooooh good question! I think season 1 will always be my favorite season. I love being in Scotland, I miss Murtaugh and Dougal and Jenny and the craziness of Claire adjusting to being trapped in another time period and watching the beginning of her and Jamie's love story. Plus I love that period of history. I am excited that we're finally entering the American Revolution though cause I also enjoy studying this period of history.

But even though I think s1 is still my favorite I do love season 2 when we meet Brianna and Roger and grown up Fergus (who is such a hottie omg I love him) and I love the flipping back and forth from 1760s to 1960s.

Each season has things I love and things I hate so it's really hard to choose! Like s1 has all the first but so much sexual violence. s2 has intro to Roger and Bree and grown up Fergus (such a hottie am I right!) and the Jacobite Rebellion but the France plot bores me. s3 has two of my favorite episodes Freedom & Whiskey and A. Malcom but god I don't care for the West Indies plot. s4 has the Roger whump but the awful heartbreaking Bree storyline but Bree and Jamie meet finally! s5 also good Roger whump. s6 has the Fergus whump. but with both of those seasons i get kinda bored with the Fraser Ridge plotlines. Ahh it's so hard to pick one!!

#outlander #mod post #mod replies

[runnning-outof-time]

Hey love, for the autumn ask game, would you answer: Potpourri, Tasty and Vintage? xx

Hi Alex! Thanks for sending these in! 🥰

Potpourri - tell us something random about you.

Oooo....I’ve played baseball (alongside the boys) for the majority of my life. I tried softball and hated it, so I went back and continued playing up through my local league and was the first ever girl to be a part of my college’s club baseball team. I don’t play anymore because I’ve hurt my shoulder, but I used to really enjoy it.

Tasty - do you have a comfort food?

Anything Italian...but specifically ziti or lasagna.

Vintage - favorite decade?

1770-1779...hah... I’m not weird, I promise...I just really enjoy studying the American Revolution, or the American War of Independence, and a lot of interesting lead up events happened within this decade (as well as the war started in it).

Ask me autumn questions

#asks answered #ask game

[ageofxail]

31, 33, and 1! ^^

31: Look at the country you are currently living in. If they are an official Hetalia character, how do you feel about that character, as well as the country itself?

That would be the United States of America. Alfred F. Jones. I have... mixed feelings about him as a character. I do really love him! But he does not well encompass a lot of things I personally like to see in a representative of the US, hence my own deviating revisions of an American Representative in Daniel King. (And for England in Nicholas & Noel, and, well, all of my muses lmao) America's so incredibly vast and has so many cultural lines that it pretty much necessitates multiple characters to more accurately portray a wider scope of American mindsets and personalities. Alfred can be the bright, loud, annoying tourist and overbearing sort of American that's eager to start a brawl and hark on about the perfections of his Union while Daniel can be much softer-spoken diplomat who would rather adjust his posture and demeanor to match the country he's visiting and take on some of the darker aspects of a country fuelled by Corporate Greed and be the economist side of the legislative feud between Federal and Local jurisdictions. America is a mess and chaos and I could ramble about being fascinated, impressed, disgusted and wary of so many things about this country for literal days on end but this is a simple ask, therefore I will hold myself back. This time.

Alfred's an awesome character, please do not take my stance as hating on him, but I do find many aspects of his characterisation to be extremely annoying and overplayed. I love him, I don't love what Flanderisation has done to him in a lot of the Hetalia fanworks I've consumed over the years.

tldr; love Alfred F Jones, have my own ideas and I'm allowed to play with those.

33: What are some of your biggest headcanons?

Every individual Representative is completely unique. They're all going to have wildly different origin stories and sets of lore behind him. Some more outlandish than others. Sure, majority of my own Reps were humans who were magically selected by the Universe At Large to be an extremely good example of A Perfect Englishman or A Perfect Canadian, but then there's my Prussia who was magically created by occult magical practices by the Catholic Church and then said magic went haywire sideways and created a feral bloodthirsty living weapon who eventually learned self-control. Sort of.

Day-to-day lore also varies wildly; Noel (my Modern England) has extreme wanderlust but finds it physically painful to stay away from England for too long (see: After a decade of living in Australia with intent to retire from being a representative, his general health declined rapidly and forced him into a hard physical reset of his facade); Daniel (America/New York) has a binding magical contract where he cannot disobey - but he can Lawyer! - an order given by a member of Congress; Gabriel (Utah) can hear the Desert Buzz and if allowed to concentrate, can communicate effectively with coyotes and bees.

Representatives are largely unnecessary to the running of a country/state/city/region, and so are not holden to strictly historical paths that rep'd place had gone down. They're individuals and can have their own stories, even ones that are contradictory to what is believed about history. See: Daniel being a loyalist during the revolution. Again, this will vary wildly.

1:What got you into Hetalia?

Studying, actually! While searching for a study guide to assist my AP Euro History class in my sophmore year of high school, I came across a youtube video titled "What if WWI was a Bar Fight?" and while reading the comment section, there were many references to an anime called Hetalia. Curiosity had me looking up the show, watching a couple episodes, continually forgetting it was a thing and yet still revisiting the concept of Personified Representations of Countries as I wrote out summaries of various historical events thru the guise of Reps. I slowly consumed more actual Hetalia content, but by about five years into playing with Reps, I had decided I liked my own developed Personifications better than either canon or fanon Hetalia Reps and largely abandoned Hetalia in favor of simply enjoying my immortal lads as their own creations with loose ties to Hetalia as a starting point. A bachelor's degree in history and fourteen years later, I still enjoy Hetalia, but largely do my own thing.