It's kinda shocking to me how few people seem to know how prevalent the 'my great grandmother was cherokee' myth is and how it's almost never actually true, especially when it comes with things like 'never signed up' or 'fell off the trail' or 'courthouse burned down destorying the documentation' etc etc.
People just don't even seem to know the history like.. when the Trail happened. My great great great grandfather was 2 years old during Removal in 1838, so peoples 'my great grandmother hid in the mountains!' is so clearly wrong. And we have rolls. From before and after removal, rolls done by cherokee nation and others by the government, rolls that were not stored in one random flammable courthouse. It's not difficult to find the actual evidence of ancestry.
And just.. there are lots of ways those family stories get started. It was a practice during the confederacy to claim cherokee ancestry to show one's family had 'deep roots in the south' that they were there before the cherokee were removed. Many people pretended to be cherokee and applied for the Guion-Miller payout just to try to steal money meant for cherokees - 2/3rds of the applicants were denied for having 0 proof of actual cherokee ancestry. [We even see lawyers advertising signing up for the Miller roll just to try to get free money.] And the myth even started in some families in the cherokee land lotteries, where the land stolen from us was raffled off, including the house and everything that was left behind when the cherokees were removed. We have seen people whose families just take these things stolen from the cherokee family and adopt them into their own family story, saying that they were cherokee themselves.
If you had some family story about being cherokee and you wanna have proof one way or the other, check out this Facebook group run by expert cherokee genealogists that do research for free. Just please read the rules fully and respect the researchers. They run thousands of people's ancestries a year and their average is only around 0.7% of lines they run actually end up having true cherokee ancestry.
378 notes
·
View notes
hi. vore on main.
no that's it that's the post this is straight up genuinely and unironically voreposting on main. mostly just a lot of cutsey dumb goofy shit, but monsterfucker brain did get ahold of me for a bit there so there's also a handful that are uhhhh Spicy. nothing explicit, but like, It's Vore Dude, so if you look under the cut that is YOUR problem ok? ok.
ok listen before i move on i have to put it out there look i KNOW i drew the funny rat skeleton comic with this guy but that was ONLY because it was funny. thats not my real belief, he doesn't have any organs at all he is just a sack of gunk. he is harmless. it's basically just the same inside as on the outside but slightly more damp since it's not exposed to air to give him that drier 'skin' layer.
also i already typed this out in my friendserver so im pasting it here now too. my stance on fp re: horniness is i really can't see him as a 'sexual' being, per se, especially with how non-biological he is, but also he really really really likes physical intimacy so if you are giving him permission to be weird and touchy on you in any context, let alone one both parties would enjoy, i mean. he's not gonna say no. this Could be about sex or w/e if someone wanted to fuck him but more relevantly here yeah it's about vore. i think that's categorically about the Most you can be touchy/in contact on a guy so yeah thats always what he's going to go for.
tangentially he just thinks it's fun to make peppino* flustered so since pep does not particularly Enjoy being vored, fp has other options to Get Up In There for something else pep might enjoy
*spoken generally for whatever theoretical partner, just peppino is the one that's readily available here and fun to use
also while im here id like to say. no peppino is not a monsterfucker are you kidding me. he is not going to ever go out of his way for weirdness. weirdness really has a way of finding him though, and he's shockingly tolerant of it as long as he doesn't clock it as a threat. anyway what im saying is if you got a big clingy beast around and al up in your business all the time shits just gonna kinda Happen sometimes. he's certainly not going to Encourage it but if hes already in that situation, might as well at that point.
140 notes
·
View notes
this episode was truly so fucking funny like can we talk about how good the visual gags were this episode becuase they really went all out using the different format to their advantage!!! the way the alternative cinematography and editing lent itself to so much visual comedy was absolutely fantastic - nandor and guillermo stood in the background of an interview shot staring silently at the camera, the running gag of guillermo being seen digging graves and dragging bodies around the house then running outside with a shovel at the mention of the garden being renovated, nadja talking to the camera and then it pulling out to reveal she's surrounded by workmen, laszlo not even turning into a bat to fight simon and instead opting to chuck every pair of shoes he owns at him, and how could I forget the house in the preview for the next episode straight up fucking exploding. truly one of the funniest episodes to date that capitalises on the unique absurdity of the conventions of a home renovation show and then said show going to shit to the absolute fullest. actually incredible stuff
382 notes
·
View notes
Oh no That's not what I meant. We should feel bad. Because she let us see ourselfs in a story that wasn't meant for us and she just used us. I meant that she only used knowledge shared and discovered by poc to give "depth" to her characters and used us for marketing. But we were never part of the main story. For me it is just as bad. We are just a token that she can use as she sees fit but she will never talk about us. For that reason I remind myself constantly that Suzanne was never on my side. Her story was for her people because in her words, she wants them to "evolve from choosing war as an option." But for us, we are not even allowed to see it as an "option." War is something that others send to our doorstep and we have no say in it.
This is perfectly worded oh my goodness, and I totally agree.
I think in my analysis in the beginning, I saw the similarities of the story and it might have been niave of me to assume that she sympathized and assumed that oppressed people were in the right. But these past few asks and the interview with her really changed my perspective on the story.
I agree, she definitely is using the concept of "war" to imply some moral standing without recognizing exactly how that impacts the people directly affected. I had felt it throughout the story as well but I was willing to excuse it and I'm starting to think that was wrong of me.
Like with the Vietnam War veteran story, she talked about how "worried" she was for her dad... but she didn't mention at all how her dad was pretty relatively safe and dropping bombs on a country halfway across the world. The Vietnamese had no right to resist in her opinion, or at least thats the way it sounded.... and the real sadness, to her, is that she worried for her father when she was six and not that her father participated in a killing campagin. Honestly, it feels like an echo of Israeli logic. What about the people the bombs were dropped on? What about the people in the Iraq war who suffered for no other reason than for oil? What about the people who suffer under oppression?
She used the idea of revolution of an everyday person, who everyone thought was indigenous coded, so that she could paint this story of "war is bad" and that the continued oppression is bad also but you know, it's never ok to start war. I had seen another interview with her about how she mentioned she wrote the books to examine what is necessary to "wage war" and that the people of the districts "had a reason" but the ending doesn't feel like that all the way.
I don't know if you read it but "Against the Loveless World" by Susan Abualhawa, who is Palestinian, also deals with revolution and resisting. Honestly, like, it's one of my favorite books ever even more than Hunger Games (which is going lower and lower by the minute lol) and in that, the book ends with a sense of love that was missing from the Hunger Games ending, which feels a little more moral in its judgement.
You're right, it was intentional the way she used liberation movements to enact a sort of echo in modern history without actually examining who conducts these liberation movements and why. She illustrates Mockingjay as a purely class struggle and neglects to mention how "whiteness" as a concept plays a part in perpetuating that class struggle.
Also the fact that District 11 explicitly has Black people working the fields (which that's a whole problem in itself, that a white woman wrote that in and that she doesnt think they are capable of revolting and owning their own future) means there is ethnicity but she doesn't want to examine the concept of "whiteness" in her book because she doesn't think it plays a part in waging war. Which truly makes it seem senseless like she claims. To me, War is senseless but because there was no reason to oppress to begin with. The war itself is not senseless — there is a purpose, but the events preceeding the war didn't have any other reason than selfishness and greed. That in itself is the really tragic part of war. It's like "I had to lose everything for you to see me as a human and why is that? Why couldnt you respect me before all this?" Collins removes the agency and even existence from the people being oppressed by painting a "war is bad" narrative and not "oppression is bad" one, like you say.
Honestly, I had assumed she wrote in the perspective of Katniss because she wanted to really make it personal in illustrating how indigenous populations suffer greatly under oppression but now with your message of that quote, I think it was solely for selfish reasons where she didn't want to examine the impact it has on people in the modern day.
"War" is not some abstract concept. It is a result of various factors of circumstances. War is terrible not necessarily solely for the war itself, which might be bloody and terrible, but more specifically for the reasons that those wars were waged.
In the Iraq war, it was waged on Iraq for no reason other than the US's greed and the Iraqis paid dearly with their lives. It ruined people even if they didn't die. And what's most tragic is that they are expected to live with the consequences of the US' decision and to move on. The Vietnam War for similar reasons, though not for oil.
The fault should be with the oppressors — not the people whose humanity isnt recognized.
I want to apologize, though, if I hurt anyone with my messages in the beginning, making it seem like I think that you are equal to your oppressors for resisting both in the America's and throughout the world. It was a pretty shallow analysis and I didn't examine the way the biases might hurt actual people.
20 notes
·
View notes