collective-history:

A freed Jewish prisoner expresses his rage and beats down a German guard at the liberated Dachau Concentration Camp. An American soldier looks on and does not interfere. Germany, 1945

(via nezua)

(via mssswitch)

yourfriendlyscop:

koboldfacedlie:

“One of the most fascinating archeological finds in Russia has been the discovery of hundreds of “birchbark documents” (messages written on the bark of birch trees with a sharp stylus) that were created from the 11th to the 15th century.

The birchbark documents of Novgorod are a major source for information about life in Medieval Novgorod because they are not the writings of church theologians or political leaders, but rather, personal messages, IOUs, love letters, shopping lists, and so on. One of the most fascinating items, in my mind, is a collection of children’s drawings that have been unearthed.

Children’s drawings in the Middle Ages?! Even if such things were created in period, how could they have survived to the present day? After all, finger paints, magic markers, and crayons were not yet in use, paper was far too valuable of a commodity to waste on children, and refrigerator doors were unavailable for the display of Junior’s artistic genius. Most of the products of childhood inspiration probably were expressed on the ephemeral canvas of dirt or sand.

But birchbark was a different story. The bark was widely available (although there are indications that excessive use of the medium caused a decline in the local birch population) and easily cultivated. Anyone could use it. When one was finished with the message, it was simply thrown into the mud, where the presence of water and clay created an unusually bacteria-free environment which preserved the documents. So, we have the ideal medium: cheap, easy to come by, and (thanks to unique geology) preserved for hundreds of years.

The drawings from Novgorod that we have found appear to all come from a Russian boy named Onfim, who lived at the end of the twelfth century or beginning of the thirteenth century in the city of Novgorod. By the estimate of the archaeologists who unearthed his works, he was around seven years old at the time that he made these drawings. 

Onfim was being taught to write, but he was obviously restless with his lessons and when he could get away with it, he intermixed his assignments with doodlings. In this first example, he started to write out the first eleven letters of the alphabet in the upper right corner, but got bored and drew a picture of himself as a grown-up warrior impaling an enemy with his spear. To remove any doubt about the identity of the warrior, he even labeled the person on the horse as “Onfim.” 

Fantasies of becoming a mighty warrior were not the only things that Onfim thought up though. In another example, he took the piece of bark that he was practicing on (left), turned it over (right), and drew a picture of himself disguised as a wild beast (which he identified by writing “I am a wild beast” [Ia zver’] over it). The beast, with its long tongue (or fiery breath), is apparently still a friendly beast as it is carrying a sign that reads “Greetings from Onfim to Danilo” [Poklon ot Onfima ko Danile]. Danilo (i.e., Daniel) was probably a friend, perhaps even a schoolmate sitting next to Onfim. 

Onfim liked to draw people and while his artistic aptitude may have been lacking, he was prolific.”

source: http://www.goldschp.net/SIG/onfim/onfim.html

these are adorable omg

(via aragingquiet)

biyuti:

For the most part, I usually consider myself a philosopher. Even as I rarely say so aloud, since this field and title are most often the sole domain of cishet white men. My training in school was in philosophy (focus on logic). In many ways, this analytic approach is still very much present in how I approach conceptualizing gender, colonialism, race, and all the other stuff I normally write about.

Taking the wikipedia definition of philosophy

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. In more casual speech, by extension, “philosophy” can refer to “the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group”.

Now, looking over this, especially if you note what is considered a ‘fundamental’ problem: reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language¹. Okay. So why is it that only when white men do this is it lifted to the heights of philosophy? While most anyone else who engages these ideas is just… what, blowing hot air?

Of course, the definition goes on “philosophy is distinguished by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument”. Okay. So this might rule out a lot of armchair philosophers. And we can also see that there are many different traditions of critical, systematic approaches to the fundamental problems. Where many of these traditions ‘fail’, as far as white philosophy is concerned, is on the charge of rational argumentation. It isn’t accidental that what is considered ‘rational’ is self-referring to the white man’s philosophy itself². This reflexivity automatically precludes pretty much any other critical, systematic approaches to fundamental problems from ever truly being considered philosophy.

This is exactly why, in most white run philosophy departments in europe, canada, and the usa, the only ‘philosophy’ most people will study is that written and articulated by white men. This is why, if you want to study the long tradition of Confucian philosophy, you are better off doing so in a religious studies department (or history, or area studies of some kind). Or you can go to school in an East Asian country, where they’ll teach Confucian thought along side Kant.

And you cannot point to content. Because if St. Anselm can be considered a major philosopher for his argument for god’s existence, but Confucius can’t, even though he explicitly refused to talk about ghosts and spirits. Or, why Nagarjuna is rarely noted in any white-focused philosophy department as one of the most influential thinkers in global history?³

Why must we study Confucius or Nagarjuna in religious departments while studying St. Augustine in philosophy departments⁴?

These attitudes and whatever continue on to today.

Today we have a situation where technology has reached a point that many different kinds of people are able and equipped to disseminate their ideas with a fair amount of ease; thus, dodging the barriers to access that have prevented many of these same people from articulating and sharing their ideas in the past (at least in a large sense, since people can always talk amongst themselves).

More to the point, it doesn’t even take a great deal of imagination or stretching to see how many of these people are addressing the fundamental problems: reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It also doesn’t take much effort to see how many of these people are addressing these problems in critical and systematic ways. And that they are using rational argumentation when supporting or articulating their views.

And yet… very few of us either claim the title ‘philosopher’ or be considered to be contributing to philosophy, despite our continued efforts to critically, systematically, and rationally examine reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Indeed, many of us are dismissed as simply being ‘social justice warriors’ or ‘internet slackivists’.

Sure, it is obvious that white supremacy must maintain hegemonic control over what is considered ‘philosophy’ or even what is considered a ‘fundamental problem⁵. And, of course, what is considered ‘rational’, ‘systematic’, or ‘critical’.

Because, as any blogger or tweeter or tumblr person knows, if you make a habit of critically, systematically, and rationally engaging topics surrounding oppression, you’ll constantly be singled out as making too big of a deal about stuff. Spend your time analyzing how videogames reify certain hierarchies of personhood via the mis/representation of marginalized people? You are a whiner who takes things too seriously. Spend your time critically, systematically, and rationally examining what it means to be a trans feminine person of colour in this world? You are playing identity politics⁶.

Note what the implications are here: understanding and exploring what freedom means to someone like me is not a fundamental problem, as far as white philosophy and its adherents are concerned⁷. It is why, in discussions of free will, you’ll never see Franz Fanon’s theories of decolonization and colonialism.

I only bring this up, because the etymology of ‘philosophy’ is that it means ‘lover of wisdom’. Thus, it would appear that if you love wisdom, you are a philosopher. If you’ve spend any amount of your time dedicated to uncovering, exploring, and articulating truth, then you are a philosopher.

Even more interesting is how the wiki article continues to note that

A “philosopher” was understood as a word which contrasted with “sophist”. Traveling sophists or “wise men” were important in Classical Greece, often earning money as teachers, whereas philosophers are “lovers of wisdom” and were therefore not in it primarily for the money

Interesting, no? That those of us writing primarily in areas where people do not pay to read our writing and we do not get paid to write. That there are a multitude of us simply devoted to spending our time and energy into critically, systematically, and rationally investigating and exploring our fundamental problems (freedom, justice, existence, etc.) who do this free and simply because we love wisdom and truth.

But none of us are philosophers, amirite? We are all just social justice warriors.

So, yeah, I’m totally reclaiming my role/title as philosopher. Because, sure as fuck, no one is paying me anything for the contributions I make to the areas of gender, colonialism, race, etc. I do this not only because I love wisdom, but because I want freedom. And my problems are fundamental.

1. Something could also be said about how white centric these ‘fundamental’ problems are in the first place. And that a tradition of critical thought could be considered un-philosophy if it doesn’t actually handle any of these ‘fundamental’ problems ↩
2. Also note: because women are historical, emotional beings, they also can never be philosophers ↩
3. I literally dare anyone to make the claim that Nagarjuna did not address fundamental problems in a critical, systematic way while using rational arguments ↩
4. Yes, I realize that people in religious studies departments may also study St. Augustine ↩
5. note: I’m not restricting this to men anymore since nowadays, white feminist thought or feminist philosophies have achieved some level of legitimacy in philosphy — definitely not equal, but the recognition is there ↩
6. And, of course, beyond all belief ‘identity’ should somehow not be construed as a fundamental problem. or something ↩
7. And by ‘adherents’ i mean those people who’ve taken one intro class to philosophy or have taken no philosophy but believe in ‘rationality’ as some basic virtue. Those people who, very much believe that any emotional content in your argument voids its rationality. ↩

Fantasy author Tansy Rayner Roberts on historically authentic sexism in fantasy

alexandraerin:

silverilly:

bookshop:

mydaywithd:

Julie D’Aubigny was a 17th-century bisexual French opera singer and fencing master who killed or wounded at least ten men in life-or-death duels, performed nightly shows on the biggest and most highly-respected opera stage in the world, and once took the Holy Orders just so that she could sneak into a convent and shag a nun.

(via Feminism)

bisexual opera singer who killed ten men and snuck into a convent to shag a nun.

Just so y’all know, she later set that convent on fire so she and that nun could sneak out. And she seduced one of the men she’d dueled.

Also, dueling was a serious crime during her life, but the king of France essentially overturned her conviction on the grounds that the relevant law specifically referred to men. 

(via searchingforknowledge)

canadianarchaeology:

Today New York City is the Big Apple of the Northeast but new research reveals that 500 years ago, at a time when Europeans were just beginning to visit the New World, a settlement on the north shore of Lake Ontario, in Canada, was the biggest, most complex, cosmopolitan place in the region.

(via ai-yo)

gradientlair:

Lack of knowledge on the actual policies. Very few people actually understand the original executive orders, subsequent judicial decisions and legislation beyond sound bites via “news” that is insistent upon painting this as “taking stuff” from Whites for Black people (as if it is “just” about Black people). Honesty, how many White people have reviewed the actual history of why this is needed? It’s almost as rare to find as anyone who calls themselves “patriotic” who has actually read the Constitution or a Christian who has read the Bible. Media soundbites shaped by bigotry (in a White supremacist capitalist patriarchal society) absorbed by many Whites whose life ideologies have been shaped by bigotry is not going to produce the nuance and thought necessary to understand affirmative action. (Even so, these two simple, non in-depth cartoons explain this almost as well as the complex legalese: 1 and 2.)

Anti-intellectualism. Piggybacking on the first point, the current culture of anti-intellectualism doesn’t encourage most White people (and Americans at large) to actually investigate things they are “for” or “against.” It’s much simpler to decide to be “for” anything shaped by a legacy of White supremacy and White privilege and against anything that appears to be contrary to the former. Whites are used to being a “baseline,” the “norm,” or not considered a group at all, but those whom other groups are compared to.  Sociopolitically, many Whites are having a “day of reckoning” moment by even being classified as a “group,” or a “race” as Tom Scocca pointed out so well in a recent article about Romney’s overwhelming support from Whites. These factors contribute to the resistance to affirmative action.

Ahistorical views on race. If a White person takes the “why isn’t there a White history month” and “why isn’t there a White Entertainment Television station” stances on Whites and the media, it can be safely assumed that they are either uneducated or being willfully ignorant about the role of race in America and why certain spaces exist for Black people amidst the media, public discourse and culture itself. By pretending that the tide of history has no racial element, they can then infer that if everyone “is equal” (as if being equal means being treated equally) Black people are “unfairly” getting “goodies” through affirmative action. This also ignores the fact that even with said theoretical ”goodies,” unemployment, health care, finances, real estate, and more is markedly worse for Black people (and other people of colour) versus White. The latter is written off as Black “character failures” in the ever so common victim blaming ideologies such as American “exceptionalism” and even “patriotism” at times. This is where LIES about “poverty culture” come about as a way to praise greed, wealth and Whiteness and demonize suffering, poverty and Blackness.

The concept of what “greatness” is. The inherent racism involved in assuming that someone White is always “more” qualified, as if being White is a skill itself, is common in everything from college admissions to employment applications. The idea is that some “stupid” minority “stole” a slot from the perfect White knight on a horse who deserved things because he “worked” for them prevails. Further, the idea that perhaps a series of advantages afforded by White privilege is “hard work” would be even more humorous if it wasn’t despicable. Said privileges often place Whites ahead in spaces by sheer virtue of the luxury of Whiteness, not any actual work.  The myth of meritocracy is a plague on the American psyche. (Christopher Hayes wrote about this oh too well in his book Twilight Of The Elites - America After Meritocracy. Also, I recently read a fascinating study about the REALITY of financial aid versus the myth that “stupid” minorities “take all of the college monies,” and other assorted lies.)

A zero/sum view of racism. Ultimately, many Whites feel that any joy, success or progress in Black life means misery, failure and regression in White life. Period. This tunnel vision view is rooted in racism and fear. Research has revealed that many cisgender heterosexual White men feel like the “real” victims in America. Even if they are victims, would that not be at the hands of men just like them, except of a higher social class? Not to them. Racist social narratives involve the worship of “job creators” (the same ones who fire these men) as heroes because after all, they share Whiteness even if they don’t share class, status or cash. Other research has revealed that while some Whites view past times (during and pre-Civil Rights era) as a time more racist against Blacks, they view today as “more racist” against Whites. Of course this is false and has more to do with the idea of some Black people not suffering and Barack Obama’s existence more than any in-depth study of how race is a primary factor to consider when examining socioeconomic status. The enlightened exceptionalism involved in some who even choose to praise Oprah or Beyonce or LeBron James is what allows them to pretend that life for the average and for most Black people has dramatically changed, when for many, it has not. Claims of “reverse racism,” which doesn’t exist, are more common now than ever.

People who benefit from affirmative action also want it destroyed. While more than anyone else, White women have benefited from affirmative action, many of them stand with White men against affirmative action while simultaneously benefiting from it. Most people now know the name Abigail Fisher and know it well. Further, many older Black people (primarily men from what I’ve seen) want it dismantled despite the fact they benefited from it in the past. They clearly knew that in their time especially, being qualified was not enough. Assumed inferiority blocked their way.

Related Posts: CEO? Have A Seat. Kthanxbai., Black Woman? Want A Job? Register On Monster.com As A White Woman, False Equivalence, Kerry Washington Talks Affirmative Action On Real Time

(via searchingforknowledge)

otaachimow:

Here is the main point of my argument: History is not a linear march of progress and improvement from a primitive state to a better civilized one, but a continuous, cyclical readjustment of life in accordance with the shifting of the environment around us. 

While in the European model of history, people are thought to be constantly seeking material improvement of their lives, in an indigenous view, I suggest that people are trying to live mino-bimaadiziwin. Mino-bimaadiziwin is an Anishinaabe word, but I have been taught about it by Cree and Metis people as well (who call it miyo-pimatisiwin). It literally means “good life” but the meaning is very different from the English. To put it simplistically, mino-bimaadiziwin means living a life fully according to your community’s values. It includes both material aspects of life and spiritual ones. (This is a big simplification; mino-bimaadiziwin is a major thing in Anishinaabe thought that has a lot of ideas involved I’m not getting into here.)

When I read and talk about indigenous history, I look for how people were trying to live mino-bimaadiziwin. That is, what they did to try to have good conditions (of having enough to eat, a happy family, shelter, comfort) and to live a good life according to their community’s values (following spiritual practices, connection to the community, respecting and honoring, etc). Where this tends to confuse people in the European model of history is that sometimes, the way to live mino-bimaadiziwin leads people to so-called “primitive” ways of life. 

Some examples of how this can be applied to our understanding of history:

Cahokia and the Mississippian cultures. Westerner historians treat this like a standard narrative of the rise and fall of “advanced civilization.” They take it for granted that people would move “towards” a stratified society, and are thus confused and constantly trying to find out why it “fell.” The narrative looks different from an indigenous perspective. People moved to villages and cities because they offered a way of mino-bimaadiziwin: Cahokia has shown that it offered abundant shelter and food as well as a strong spiritual grounding.

Eventually, however, the changing environment made other ways of life offer the best ways of mino-bimaadiziwin. Weather, crop failure, and health problems meant that living in smaller villages or hunting buffalo offered better material conditions, and it’s likely that the political and spiritual situations (because they were tightly interwoven) were similar. There is no reason to regard life in the cities of the Mississippians as superior to the ones they lived in after. 

The plains way of life. Although people have always hunted buffalo and lived on the plains, the real height of the horse-based buffalo-hunting way of life didn’t kick off until 1700. To Western eyes, the change from life in sedentary agricultural villages to nomadic hunting ones looks like a regression. But to indigenous eyes, it is a very sensible change in the continuous search for mino-bimaadiziwin. 

Before the 1700s, buffalo hunting was very beneficial to communities both from a material and spiritual perspective, but it was also very dangerous and difficult to manage on a long-term basis. Starting in the early 1700s, however, horses and guns began to arrive on the plains. This change in the environment (particularly the horses) made it possible to hunt buffalo more or less full time. Hunting buffalo offered mino-bimaadiziwin: food, shelter, clothing, spiritual fulfillment. Even European accounts record that the way of the buffalo hunt was a constant enticement to Native people. 

Thule and Inuit history. I recently read something that described people north of the tree line as having lived roughly the same way of life for thousands of years. While I suspect there’s much more to it than that, I want to address the Western view that living in the same way for a very long time is bad. In the Western view, progress is assumed the default and thus not only “regression” but also a lack of progress is considered a failure. 

Looking at this from an indigenous perspective, however, it look instead that people have found a way of mino-bimaadiziwin that is fulfilling within their environment and that the environment has not changed enough to require substantial alterations to that way of living. For certain, it changes constantly and so some changes occurred, but on the whole that method of mino-bimaadiziwin sustained people for a very long time. 

Conclusion

There’s a ton more stuff I could get into—I’m really excited, there’s a lot in this way of looking at history that I want to explore. Looking at modern indigenous life as a continuation of our seeking mino-bimaadiziwin. How the mino-bimaadiziwin model of history can even be applied to Europe, with some alterations. The importance of recognizing individual peoples’ approaches to history, recognizing that mino-bimaadiziwin comes from specific groups and may not be the most appropriate for all indigenous people. I’m also really excited to see how the ideas Marimba Ani has suggested in Yurugu (such as asili, utamawazo, and utamaroho) can help in an indigenous (specifically indigenous African) idea of history. 

(via sofriel-deactivated20130317)

lebanesepoppyseed:

Let’s also operate on the idea that racism is oppressive based on historical and cultural contexts that show large-scale, hierarchical, bad/aggravated/deadly interactions between racial groups, since this gives said racism its power.

Given that, how is this alleged racism towards whites, however it manifests itself, harmful? Name instances that show oppressive interactions between white people and POC in which POC were causing white people harm on a large, systemic level.*

Name times when POC manipulated the culture that they were dominant of to be biased towards them, used their platform of power in said culture to espouse their inherent racial superiority and the inherent inferiority of white people. Name times when this manipulation became prevalent and reflective in everything-government, the sciences, the media, religion, the medical field, education, the work force, all aspects of culture. Name times when said bias was deadly to white folk.

Name a time when POC conquested, ruled, and dominated over most of the countries of the world, or if not, had a very strong influence in a country’s culture?

Name a time when the dominant culture of the world (like Western culture) was POC.

.

..

…

Now, if we are operating on the idea that racism is any time you say something demeaning, derogatory, or generalize about another race with the point being to show your superiority over said race and to point out their inherent inferiority, POC STILL aren’t guilty of that. 

Yes, POC generalize-when we talk about racism and privilege and cultural things, for example. At it’s simplest, topical comments like “White people sure love casserole” or “Why don’t they take off their shoes when they enter the house?” while painting a broad brush, are hardly even rude, let alone are oppressive statements that mischaracterize white people, let alone have brought them wide-scale systemic harm. At its worse, our racialized language is that of a people turned bitter from being sick of being oppressed by another group that thinks themselves higher than us, or of wanting to destroy a dominant culture so it is NO LONGER TREADING ON OUR BACKS. Nowhere does our language include wanting to become the oppressors, but rather to stop being oppressed.

On the other hand, the racialized language of white people is that of a people who think themselves and their culture better or superior to others, who hear proof of said superiority reflected in their culture, or who see other cultures as exotic/strange/unpalatable/animalistic, etc. They also have the power and control to make that reflected in the cultures they inhabit and to cause mass harm and mischaracterization of POC. Many times they are fine with becoming or eager in being oppressors, since it is a means by which to control, subjugate, or even wipe out the peoples they think themselves above.

POC racial sentiments come from fear of erasure, of loss of identity and culture, more pain, oppression, and subjugation. White racial sentiments come from fear of loss of dominance and power, and thoughts of superiority and entitlement.

Because of this, POC racialized language is in no way, shape, or form on par in harm, voracity, or maliciousness with the kind of generalized racialized talk you hear from white people. These differences have to be taken into account and can’t merely be ignored in favor of reductionist, supremacist culture-favoring definitions of racism.

Another thing to note-negative racial generalizations come from simply existing in a negatively racialized culture. You internalize the shitty generalizations of the people the culture deems inferior. You don’t internalize any shitty generalizations of the dominant group, of course. Given that, there really isn’t such a thing as these mass dangerous & harmful generalizations POC have about white folk. Why would the supremacist culture inure us with negative generalizations about themselves?

*No, small or isolated instances of POC prejudice and affirmative action do not count. That includes the time that Latina girl called you a “gringo” or even people saying “Kill Whitey”. If anything, since those are types of reactions to or results of white supremacy, they are in fact the fruits of white racism’s labour.

**I’d also like to note in general that this whole piece is operating on the current definitions of privilege and oppression, of whiteness and POC. Yes, if you go back far enough in history, all humans have oppressed other humans and it doesn’t follow neatly under the POC or WHITE box, let alone any current discussions or dissections of racial interactions, at all. That doesn’t erase white privilege or white supremacy as we’ve seen in the past 600 or so years of human history or mean that POC in the current day can be oppressive because once a long time ago they were. Again, this is operating on current definitions & current ways in which people are racialized and what privilege or powers they do or don’t have based on history and current manifestations of culture and racial attitudes.

(via bad-dominicana)

notime4yourshit:

Black feminist thought has been a powerful means of social change and is a unique approach to social justice. One of it’s greatest strengths is found in the concept of intersectionality and is often used in Patricia Collin’s work, Black Feminist Thought. Its strengths consists in attempting to find the ways in which various forms of oppression work together to contribute to differential experiences for various groups and individuals. It has been a particularly powerful critique for movements, such as early feminism, that have focused on one oppressed identity as a means for unification and ignored other forms of oppression. It has challenged those movements on the basis that the experiences of the group are not all identical due to differences in race, class, gender, sexuality and any other number of categories of privilege and oppression. However, these various categories are innumerable and this presents serious problems for movements that attempt to incorporate the concept of intersectionality.

(via navigatethestream)

thejazzwriter:

This word has been butchered and abused almost as much as it has been wielded for social change. I myself am not going to argue some formal academic abstraction of it, I am simply going to describe what it means to me personally. The key to keeping an afrocentric culture alive is not by…

(Source: wageslaverebellion)