1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
wizardarchetypes
wigwamcore

Why "Precolonial" Indigenous North American History Matters: A Mini Syllabus

Okay I had this half-finished lying around so I prettied it up into something vaguely usable and added links wherever possible (most of them being totally legal...)

This is not a full treatment of Indigenous history before European contact. It was originally created to be a 15 week class, so it was not intended to cover everything but to give a taste of various regions and histories. Unfortunately, certain essays I would highly recommend are in the Oxford handbooks I listed at the end, and I have been unable to locate free-to-access versions.

Each section includes a question to consider that is intended to suggest ways that these precolonial histories have reverberations into the present. In a course I'd be able to draw them out more clearly, but keep them in mind as you read, if you like. Finally, please keep in mind that few of these sources will read like a "straightforward history" of "precolonial [xyz region/tribe/nation]." Be open-minded and critical-thinking!

Part 1: Foundations

Questions to consider:

  • Why didn't we learn this stuff?
  • Why should we learn this stuff?
  • Why do so many Indigenous people distrust historians / anthropologists / archaeologists?

Readings:

(Parts 2-6 under the cut)

Keep reading

wigwamcore

Wow. Look at this incredible guide I created for you all, tumblr, and yet it only has 200 notes

wigwamcore

Wanted to add something for the north and west, which are not covered well in the original syllabus!

The Arctic

Question to consider: Why is Nunavut the only province or territory in Canada where an Indigenous language is the majority language?

Pacific Coast

Question to consider: What historical qualities caused the Pacific Northwest Coast to inspire Franz Boaz to develop the theory of cultural relativism?

aduare
copperbadge

On Saturday I said to my partner, as I have said for months, "A ten thousand dollar a year raise would solve so many of my problems."

As of this morning I was reluctantly looking for jobs because I love my job and don't want to leave it, but see: $10k raise problem solver.

As of noon today this was no longer an issue, because my boss called me with the news that I was getting a $10K merit raise.

I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off my shoulders. This is roughly $200 extra per paycheck. Enough to pay off debt faster, rebuild my savings, and spend a weekend a month in Milwaukee getting obscenely laid. The sex I'm going to have on $200 extra per paycheck. You can't even.

May all of you get the $10K raise your soul has yearned for. And whatever level of sex you can be satisfied with for $200.

vergess

hey bestie i think ur post might be charmed 'cause you aren't gonna fuckin believe what happened today

kedreeva
star-anise

So what I’ve learned from the past couple months of being really loud about being a bi woman on Tumblr is: A lot of young/new LGBT+ people on this site do not understand that some of the stuff they’re saying comes across to other LGBT+ people as offensive, aggressive, or threatening. And when they actually find out the history and context, a lot of them go, “Oh my god, I’m so sorry, I never meant to say that.”

Like, “queer is a slur”: I get the impression that people saying this are like… oh, how I might react if I heard someone refer to all gay men as “f*gs”. Like, “Oh wow, that’s a super loaded word with a bunch of negative freight behind it, are you really sure you want to put that word on people who are still very raw and would be alarmed, upset, or offended if they heard you call them it, no matter what you intended?”

So they’re really surprised when self-described queers respond with a LOT of hostility to what feels like a well-intentioned reminder that some people might not like it. 

That’s because there’s a history of “political lesbians”, like Sheila Jeffreys, who believe that no matter their sexual orientation, women should cut off all social contact with men, who are fundamentally evil, and only date the “correct” sex, which is other women. Political lesbians claim that relationships between women, especially ones that don’t contain lust, are fundamentally pure, good, and  unproblematic. They therefore regard most of the LGBT community with deep suspicion, because its members are either way too into sex, into the wrong kind of sex, into sex with men, are men themselves, or somehow challenge the very definitions of sex and gender. 

When “queer theory” arrived in the 1980s and 1990s as an organized attempt by many diverse LGBT+ people in academia to sit down and talk about the social oppressions they face, political lesbians like Jeffreys attacked it harshly, publishing articles like “The Queer Disappearance of Lesbians”, arguing that because queer theory said it was okay to be a man or stop being a man or want to have sex with a man, it was fundamentally evil and destructive. And this attitude has echoed through the years; many LGBT+ people have experience being harshly criticized by radical feminists because being anything but a cis “gold star lesbian” (another phrase that gives me war flashbacks) was considered patriarchal, oppressive, and basically evil.

And when those arguments happened, “queer” was a good umbrella to shelter under, even when people didn’t know the intricacies of academic queer theory; people who identified as “queer” were more likely to be accepting and understanding, and “queer” was often the only label or community bisexual and nonbinary people didn’t get chased out of. If someone didn’t disagree that people got to call themselves queer, but didn’t want to be called queer themselves, they could just say “I don’t like being called queer” and that was that. Being “queer” was to being LGBT as being a “feminist” was to being a woman; it was opt-in.

But this history isn’t evident when these interactions happen. We don’t sit down and say, “Okay, so forty years ago there was this woman named Sheila, and…” Instead we queers go POP! like pufferfish, instantly on the defensive, a red haze descending over our vision, and bellow, “DO NOT TELL ME WHAT WORDS I CANNOT USE,” because we cannot find a way to say, “This word is so vital and precious to me, I wouldn’t be alive in the same way if I lost it.” And then the people who just pointed out that this word has a history, JEEZ, way to overreact, go away very confused and off-put, because they were just trying to say.

But I’ve found that once this is explained, a lot of people go, “Oh wow, okay, I did NOT mean to insinuate that, I didn’t realize that I was also saying something with a lot of painful freight to it.”

And that? That gives me hope for the future.

star-anise

Similarily: “Dyke/butch/femme are lesbian words, bisexual/pansexual women shouldn’t use them.”

When I speak to them, lesbians who say this seem to be under the impression that bisexuals must have our own history and culture and words that are all perfectly nice, so why can’t we just use those without poaching someone else’s?

And often, they’re really shocked when I tell them: We don’t. We can’t. I’d love to; it’s not possible.

“Lesbian” used to be a word that simply meant a woman who loved other women. And until feminism, very, very few women had the economic freedom to choose to live entirely away from men. Lesbian bars that began in the 1930s didn’t interrogate you about your history at the door; many of the women who went there seeking romantic or sexual relationships with other women were married to men at the time. When The Daughters of Bilitis formed in 1955 to work for the civil and political wellbeing of lesbians, the majority of its members were closeted, married women, and for those women, leaving their husbands and committing to lesbian partners was a risky and arduous process the organization helped them with. Women were admitted whether or not they’d at one point truly loved or desired their husbands or other men–the important thing was that they loved women and wanted to explore that desire.

Lesbian groups turned against bisexual and pansexual women as a class in the 1970s and 80s, when radical feminists began to teach that to escape the Patriarchy’s evil influence, women needed to cut themselves off from men entirely. Having relationships with men was “sleeping with the enemy” and colluding with oppression. Many lesbian radical feminists viewed, and still view, bisexuality as a fundamentally disordered condition that makes bisexuals unstable, abusive, anti-feminist, and untrustworthy.

(This despite the fact that radical feminists and political lesbians are actually a small fraction of lesbians and wlw, and lesbians do tend, overall, to have positive attitudes towards bisexuals.)

That process of expelling bi women from lesbian groups with immense prejudice continues to this day and leaves scars on a lot of bi/pan people. A lot of bisexuals, myself included, have an experience of “double discrimination”; we are made to feel unwelcome or invisible both in straight society, and in LGBT spaces. And part of this is because attempts to build a bisexual/pansexual community identity have met with strong resistance from gays and lesbians, so we have far fewer books, resources, histories, icons, organizations, events, and resources than gays and lesbians do, despite numerically outnumbering them..

So every time I hear that phrase, it’s another painful reminder for me of all the experiences I’ve had being rejected by the lesbian community. But bisexual experiences don’t get talked about or signalboosted much,so a lot of young/new lesbians literally haven’t learned this aspect of LGBT+ history.

And once I’ve explained it, I’ve had a heartening number of lesbians go, “That’s not what I wanted to happen, so I’m going to stop saying that.”

simonalkenmayer

This is good information for people who carry on with the “queer is a slur” rhetoric and don’t comprehend the push back.

theroguefeminist

ive been saying for years that around 10 years ago on tumblr, it was only radfems who were pushing the queer as slur rhetoric, and everyone who was trans or bi or allies to them would push back - radfems openly admitted that the reason they disliked the term “queer” was because it lumped them in with trans people and bi women. over the years, the queer is a slur rhetoric spread in large part due to that influence, but radfems were more covert about their reasons - and now it’s a much more prevalent belief on tumblr - more so than on any queer space i’ve been in online or offline - memory online is very short-term unfortunately bc now i see a lot of ppl, some of them bi or trans themselves, who make this argument and vehemently deny this history but…yep

ryttu3k

Or asexuality, which has been a concept in discussions on sexuality since 1869. Initially grouped slightly to the left, as in the categories were ‘heterosexual’, ‘homosexual’, and ‘monosexual’ (which is used differently now, but then described what we would call asexuality). Later was quite happily folded in as a category of queerness by Magnus Hirschfeld and Emma Trosse in the 1890s, as an orientation that was not heterosexuality and thus part of the community.

Another good source here, also talking about aromanticism as well. Aspec people have been included in queer studies as long as queer studies have existed.

Also, just in my own experiences, the backlash against ‘queer’ is still really recent. When I was first working out my orientation at thirteen in 2000, there was absolutely zero issue with the term. I hung out on queer sites, looked for queer media, and was intrigued by queer studies. There were literally sections of bookstores in Glebe and Newtown labelled ‘Queer’. It was just… there, and so were we!

So it blows my mind when there are these fifteen-year-olds earnestly telling me - someone who’s called themself queer longer than they’ve been alive - that “que*r is a slur.” Unfortunately, I have got reactive/defensive for the same reasons OP has mentioned. I will absolutely work on biting down my initial defensiveness and trying to explain - in good faith - the history of the word, and how it’s been misappropriated and tarnished by exclusionists.

creekfiend
asteroidtroglodyte

TIL the reason you don’t find much Lyme’s Disease in California is not because we don’t have Ticks, or Lyme Disease Vectors; but rather: because the Western Fence Lizard (if you live anywhere in California this is your regular Garden Variety Lizard) has adapted a passive immune response that makes their blood lethal to Lyme Disease Bacteria. Any Tick that feeds on one gets its gut cleansed of Lyme Disease as a side effect.

Fucking neat.

iheartvelma

There is a new vaccine going into Phase 3 trials from Valneva and Pfizer as well as a monoclonal antibody-based prophylactic treatment being researched at UMass!

dragon-in-a-fez

"the only cure for this weird disease is the special lizard blood" is a Star Trek TOS plot that escaped into the real world

massachusetts-official

Official Post of Massachusetts

aduare
mebbrrr

every now and then the internet decides it should revamp the ole “stop texting first and see how many friends you lose” when in reality you could literally just communicate that u feel bad that ur the only one texting first

mebbrrr

mfs are legit assuming that their friend isnt texting first because of how little they care abt their friendship when in reality they literally just dont know ur upset and didnt realize there was a problem in the first place. just talk to ur friends its not that hard and if they’re a bitch just tell them to kick rocks

kedreeva
great-tweets

image

We just knew.

awed-frog

As a reminder, this is what she looks like:

image
yougetsomekisses

image
larkiethings

Also I hope everyone knows that Miette was fostered before she was adopted, and her foster mom loved that little kitten so much and always hoped she’d gone to a good home. this tweet got so popular that she recognized Miette and reached out to her current mom, and was able to share previously unseen baby pictures

darthmelyanna

You mean, she saw Miette was kicked like the football and did nothing to help put Mother in jail for a thousand years? I am appalled.

howdysamhowdy

her!!!

image
image
image
madeofstarsandfairylights

Baby Miette!!!

ottermatopoeia

Babe wake up new Miette lore just dropped

devil-with-three-heads

IT’S MIETTE!!!!

pangur-and-grim
todaysbird

insane how sexism damaged how we research (and what we know about) animals. did you grow up being taught that only male birds sing? you may be entitled to financial compensation

todaysbird

we’ve intentionally avoided giving more thought to animals who have matriarchal societies for this reason or they’re (hyenas) characterized as villainous and/or ‘unnatural’ when in reality there’s not a wrong way to be an animal

brightlotusmoon

image
If Gender is Essential, Why Are We Pushing It?
I have often said that the gender roles described in the Proclamation are unnecessary because either they are descriptive (meaning people na
By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog

One study showed that female monkeys chose to play with a frying pan more often than male monkeys did. The study failed to mention that the objects were not presented neutrally to the animals (giving them encouragement to take the preferred object) or the fact that monkeys don’t cook, so a frying pan holds no significance to them. [3]

todaysbird

That’s…so dystopian and absurd. Monkeys don’t cook.

beaft
leszula

I feel like too many consent-related posts focus too much on giving and getting consent, and not making sure that people feel comfortable not consenting. We talk too much of consent as if it is a given, as if you just have to ask and then you’ll get it. 

like, there are so many things that boil down to “before you have sex, ask for consent” rather than “don’t assume you’re about to have sex unless you know for sure that the other party/parties want to, and even then they could change their minds”.

Which is just really unhelpful. The whole point of consent shouldn’t be “you should always ask for it and then you can have care-free sex”. That still assumes that you’re going to have sex, when the whole point of asking what people want to do is that it should be possible to say no.

Consent and dissent are both equally valuable. It’s OK if someone asks you if you want to do something, and you say no. And whether you say no for today, for a week or forever, it’s all fine.

Because you know that there are going to be people who think they’re so ~progressive~ and so ~feminist~. when they ask their partner(s) if they want to have sex, but then won’t be able to handle the word “no”.

slow-drowned-angels

Things I wish people would do when their partner says no to having sex:

  1. Not try to convince them otherwise. You can have a discussion later about wanting to have sex more. Right now, there’s likely a lot of emotions going on and it may be seen as coercive. Have this discussion after both of you are in better headspaces, in a nonsexual situation.
  2. Not take it personally. Someone else not wanting to have sex with you right now is probably not about you. Especially if you’re in an otherwise stable relationship. If you have difficulty with this, please talk to a trusted third-party about it.
  3. Ask your partner if there’s another bonding activity they would be interested in. This can help with (2). Ideas: watching tv, playing a game, cuddling. This can also help reassure your partner that you are not mad at them for saying no and that you are a safe person to say no to.

A Bit of a Related Tangent:

People talk a lot about compromise. About how, in a relationship, if one person wants sex all the time and one wants sex only half the time, that they “should meet in the middle.” They forget to add that compromise is OPTIONAL.

If you do not want to have any sex (and especially if having sex is making you feel uncomfortable in any way), you do not have to compromise by sometimes having sex. You CAN if you want to/don’t mind doing so!! But you DO NOT HAVE TO. (You can also try and then say no that’s not going to work. You do not have to try if you do not want to.)

If you do want to have sex and your partner doesn’t, you do not have to be in that relationship.

You are allowed to be sexually incompatible with people. How that impacts your relationship is up to the people therein.

Your partner should not use “compromise” as a way to try to coerce you into having sex that you are otherwise not interested in having. If you are compromising, both parties should feel comfortable and happy with the outcome, not like it is their duty or just a way to prevent someone from leaving them.

weyrwoman-wolverine

Sternberg for Aros

weyrwoman-wolverine

So there’s this social psych theory by Robert Sternberg about how love works. I’m lazy so I’m not really gonna describe the whole thing, but there’s a handy triangle that pretty much gets you the gist of it:

image

If you want to know more about it slash don’t understand the terms (because I didn’t explain them), check out the wiki page or this nice lil summary or google it.

This lil triangle here has given me quite the tool to explain my aromanticism and what I want in relationships. Based on this theory of love, I would say that I lack the capacity to experience Passion. I do have the capacity for Intimacy and Commitment, but not experiencing Passion means I never experience Infatuation, Fatuous Love, or Romantic Love. What I can experience is Liking, Empty Love, and Companionate Love.

99.99% of my relationships are Liking. I experience Intimacy with people, want to know them and care about them and love them in a platonic way. However, I do have the capacity for Commitment. I have been in a relationship before where it was almost entirely Empty Love from my end (it was unhealthy for a host of reasons, but in any case it’s reassurance I’m capable of commitment- it lasted 3.5 years). Before I learned about the term “aromantic” I used to picture my ideal romance/partner/primary relationship as an arranged marriage or a “passionless” marriage- you know, that old married couple where they’re best friends who barely tolerate each other and just basically take each others’ presence for granted.

This is still my ideal partnership, but now I have more words to describe it. As an aromantic person with a deep capacity for Intimacy and Commitment, I want a life partner with whom I can share both of those things (and nothing else is expected). I know that a word for this kind of exists in the aro community already: queerplatonic partner. I have my issues with the word and its concept in the community, which I think I addressed in another post (I might link it if anyone cares particularly), and so I have been reluctant to use it to describe what I want. Now, however, I can definitely say that what I want is a companion. That’s the title I’m comfortable with.

Side note: I also really like that this triangle is not about physicality/sexuality at all- it’s purely about the emotional experience of love- but it could definitely be applied to physical intimacy/passion/commitment… as an allosexual, that also has bearing on what kind of partnership I have, but that’s for another post.

gallusrostromegalus
likeafieldmouse

Kim Keever

“Miniature topographies inside 200-gallon fish tanks, based on traditional landscape paintings. Keever fills the tanks with water once he’s sculpted and placed the miniatures, and colored lights and pigments create dense, atmospheric environments. He views his works as an evolution of the landscape tradition and deliberately acknowledges the conceptual artifice.”