🔥 | Latest

indigenous: School LibraryJournal @sljournal SLJ An Updated Look at Diversity in Children's Books ow.ly/nerj50uIXed DIVERSITY IN 8 CHILDREN'S BOOKS Percentage of books depicting characters from diverse backgrounds based on the 2018 publishing statistics compiled by the Cooperative Children's Book Center, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison: ccbc.education.wisc.edu/books/pcstats.asp 50% 7% 1% 5% 10% 27% +a 558 0OKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOK American Asian Pacific Islander/Asian Pacific American Latinx African/ White Animals/Other Indians/ African The CCBC Inventory includes 3,134 books published in 2018. This grophic would not hove been possible without the statistics compiled by the CCBC, ond the review and feedbock we received from Edith Compbel, Molly Beth Griffin, K. T. Horning, Debble Reese, Ebony Ellzabeth Thomas, and Modeline Tyner, Many thanks First Nations American ustration by David Huyck, in consultation with Sarah Park Dohlen Released under a Creative Commons 8Y-SA licenses https//creativecommons.org/Bicenses/by-so/4.0/ 7:30 AM Jun 20, 2019 Hootsuite Inc. 1.3K Likes 821 Retweets It is gia, hello @missgiagiagia Animals had more representation than all Black, brown and indigenous people combined. Our children deserve better. Deserve MORE SLJ SchoolLibraryJournal @sljournal 19h An Updated Look at Diversity in Children's Books ow.ly/nerj50uIXed DIVERSITY IN CHILDREN'S BOOKSZU18 Percentage of books depicting characters from diverse backgrounds based on the 2018 publishing statistics compiled by the Cooperative Children's Book Center, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison: ccbc.education.wisc.edu/books/pestats.asp 5% 7% 10% 27% 50% L558 BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS African White American Latinx Asian Pacific Animals/Other Indians/ Islander/Asian African 2:14 PM Jun 20, 2019 Twitt er for iPad 4.4K Likes 2.3K Retweets superunfriendlyreminder: That actually explains why we come after animals on the list of “ deaths that actually matter to white ppl”
indigenous: School LibraryJournal
 @sljournal
 SLJ
 An Updated Look at Diversity in
 Children's Books
 ow.ly/nerj50uIXed
 DIVERSITY IN 8
 CHILDREN'S BOOKS
 Percentage of books depicting characters from diverse backgrounds
 based on the 2018 publishing statistics compiled by the
 Cooperative Children's Book Center, School of Education,
 University of Wisconsin-Madison:
 ccbc.education.wisc.edu/books/pcstats.asp
 50%
 7%
 1%
 5%
 10%
 27%
 +a
 558
 0OKS
 BOOKS
 BOOKS
 BOOKS
 BOOKS
 BOOK
 American
 Asian Pacific
 Islander/Asian
 Pacific American
 Latinx
 African/
 White
 Animals/Other
 Indians/
 African
 The CCBC Inventory includes 3,134 books published in 2018. This grophic would not
 hove been possible without the statistics compiled by the CCBC, ond the review and
 feedbock we received from Edith Compbel, Molly Beth Griffin, K. T. Horning,
 Debble Reese, Ebony Ellzabeth Thomas, and Modeline Tyner, Many thanks
 First Nations
 American
 ustration by David Huyck, in consultation with Sarah Park Dohlen
 Released under a Creative Commons 8Y-SA licenses https//creativecommons.org/Bicenses/by-so/4.0/
 7:30 AM Jun 20, 2019 Hootsuite Inc.
 1.3K Likes
 821 Retweets

 It is gia, hello
 @missgiagiagia
 Animals had more representation than
 all Black, brown and indigenous
 people combined. Our children
 deserve better. Deserve MORE
 SLJ SchoolLibraryJournal @sljournal 19h
 An Updated Look at Diversity in Children's Books
 ow.ly/nerj50uIXed
 DIVERSITY IN
 CHILDREN'S BOOKSZU18
 Percentage of books depicting characters from diverse backgrounds
 based on the 2018 publishing statistics compiled by the
 Cooperative Children's Book Center, School of Education,
 University of Wisconsin-Madison:
 ccbc.education.wisc.edu/books/pestats.asp
 5%
 7%
 10%
 27%
 50%
 L558
 BOOKS
 BOOKS
 BOOKS
 BOOKS
 BOOKS
 African
 White
 American
 Latinx
 Asian Pacific
 Animals/Other
 Indians/
 Islander/Asian
 African
 2:14 PM Jun 20, 2019 Twitt er for iPad
 4.4K Likes
 2.3K Retweets
superunfriendlyreminder:

That actually explains why we come after animals on the list of “ deaths that actually matter to white ppl”

superunfriendlyreminder: That actually explains why we come after animals on the list of “ deaths that actually matter to white ppl”

indigenous: hu by Tami feminismandmedia: fairyofsomething: affinityforthestars: jumpingjacktrash: curlicuecal: uluhlynx: sweet-saccharin: if this ain’t the most beautiful mermaid you’ve ever seen… He looks so happy 10/10 a good mermaid the mermaid of happiness Reblog to have good and warm feelings ;w; <3 I think he’s actually from the Merby group. It’s a bunch dudes with facial hair who get together, put on tails, and do a photoshoot. This photoshoot gets turned into a calendar which is then sold and most (if not all) proceeds go to charity. Their most recent charity went to VPNL, which according to their website “works diligently throughout the province to change attitudes, behaviours, and social norms associated with violence. VPNL organizations provide violence prevention and early intervention services to those most at risk of experiencing violence: women, children and youth, Indigenous women and children, older persons, persons with disabilities, persons of varying race or ethnicity, LGBTQ+ persons, and persons of varying economic status.” They also currently have applications open for new merbys! Aside from it going to a great cause, it’s also a super funny & cute calendar! It makes for a great gift. I got two in 2018! Oh and they’re also hella inclusive and socially conscious. One of my favorite quotes from the Merby site: “Inclusion is our jam. Humans of all genders, ethnicities, faiths, abilities and ages are welcome. Good people, doing good things, having fun the whole time – that’s who we are. Ability to grow facial hair is irrelevant – it’s the beard inside that matters most.”
indigenous: hu by Tami
feminismandmedia:

fairyofsomething:

affinityforthestars:

jumpingjacktrash:

curlicuecal:

uluhlynx:

sweet-saccharin:
if this ain’t the most beautiful mermaid you’ve ever seen…

He looks so happy


10/10 a good mermaid

the mermaid of happiness


Reblog to have good and warm feelings

;w; <3

I think he’s actually from the Merby group. It’s a bunch dudes with facial hair who get together, put on tails, and do a photoshoot. 
This photoshoot gets turned into a calendar which is then sold and most (if not all) proceeds go to charity. 
Their most recent charity went to VPNL, which according to their website  “works diligently throughout the province to change attitudes, behaviours, and social norms associated with violence. VPNL organizations provide violence prevention and early intervention services to those most at risk of experiencing violence: women, children and youth, Indigenous women and children, older persons, persons with disabilities, persons of varying race or ethnicity, LGBTQ+ persons, and persons of varying economic status.”
They also currently have applications open for new merbys!
Aside from it going to a great cause, it’s also a super funny & cute calendar! It makes for a great gift. I got two in 2018! 
Oh and they’re also hella inclusive and socially conscious. One of my favorite quotes from the Merby site: 
“Inclusion is our jam. Humans of all genders, ethnicities, faiths, abilities and ages are welcome. Good people, doing good things, having fun the whole time – that’s who we are. Ability to grow facial hair is irrelevant – it’s the beard inside that matters most.”

feminismandmedia: fairyofsomething: affinityforthestars: jumpingjacktrash: curlicuecal: uluhlynx: sweet-saccharin: if this ain’t th...

indigenous: School LibraryJournal @sljournal SLJ An Updated Look at Diversity in Children's Books ow.ly/nerj50uIXed DIVERSITY IN 8 CHILDREN'S BOOKS Percentage of books depicting characters from diverse backgrounds based on the 2018 publishing statistics compiled by the Cooperative Children's Book Center, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison: ccbc.education.wisc.edu/books/pcstats.asp 50% 7% 1% 5% 10% 27% +a 558 0OKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOK American Asian Pacific Islander/Asian Pacific American Latinx African/ White Animals/Other Indians/ African The CCBC Inventory includes 3,134 books published in 2018. This grophic would not hove been possible without the statistics compiled by the CCBC, ond the review and feedbock we received from Edith Compbel, Molly Beth Griffin, K. T. Horning, Debble Reese, Ebony Ellzabeth Thomas, and Modeline Tyner, Many thanks First Nations American ustration by David Huyck, in consultation with Sarah Park Dohlen Released under a Creative Commons 8Y-SA licenses https//creativecommons.org/Bicenses/by-so/4.0/ 7:30 AM Jun 20, 2019 Hootsuite Inc. 1.3K Likes 821 Retweets It is gia, hello @missgiagiagia Animals had more representation than all Black, brown and indigenous people combined. Our children deserve better. Deserve MORE SLJ SchoolLibraryJournal @sljournal 19h An Updated Look at Diversity in Children's Books ow.ly/nerj50uIXed DIVERSITY IN CHILDREN'S BOOKSZU18 Percentage of books depicting characters from diverse backgrounds based on the 2018 publishing statistics compiled by the Cooperative Children's Book Center, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison: ccbc.education.wisc.edu/books/pestats.asp 5% 7% 10% 27% 50% L558 BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS African White American Latinx Asian Pacific Animals/Other Indians/ Islander/Asian African 2:14 PM Jun 20, 2019 Twitt er for iPad 4.4K Likes 2.3K Retweets superunfriendlyreminder: That actually explains why we come after animals on the list of “ deaths that actually matter to white ppl”
indigenous: School LibraryJournal
 @sljournal
 SLJ
 An Updated Look at Diversity in
 Children's Books
 ow.ly/nerj50uIXed
 DIVERSITY IN 8
 CHILDREN'S BOOKS
 Percentage of books depicting characters from diverse backgrounds
 based on the 2018 publishing statistics compiled by the
 Cooperative Children's Book Center, School of Education,
 University of Wisconsin-Madison:
 ccbc.education.wisc.edu/books/pcstats.asp
 50%
 7%
 1%
 5%
 10%
 27%
 +a
 558
 0OKS
 BOOKS
 BOOKS
 BOOKS
 BOOKS
 BOOK
 American
 Asian Pacific
 Islander/Asian
 Pacific American
 Latinx
 African/
 White
 Animals/Other
 Indians/
 African
 The CCBC Inventory includes 3,134 books published in 2018. This grophic would not
 hove been possible without the statistics compiled by the CCBC, ond the review and
 feedbock we received from Edith Compbel, Molly Beth Griffin, K. T. Horning,
 Debble Reese, Ebony Ellzabeth Thomas, and Modeline Tyner, Many thanks
 First Nations
 American
 ustration by David Huyck, in consultation with Sarah Park Dohlen
 Released under a Creative Commons 8Y-SA licenses https//creativecommons.org/Bicenses/by-so/4.0/
 7:30 AM Jun 20, 2019 Hootsuite Inc.
 1.3K Likes
 821 Retweets

 It is gia, hello
 @missgiagiagia
 Animals had more representation than
 all Black, brown and indigenous
 people combined. Our children
 deserve better. Deserve MORE
 SLJ SchoolLibraryJournal @sljournal 19h
 An Updated Look at Diversity in Children's Books
 ow.ly/nerj50uIXed
 DIVERSITY IN
 CHILDREN'S BOOKSZU18
 Percentage of books depicting characters from diverse backgrounds
 based on the 2018 publishing statistics compiled by the
 Cooperative Children's Book Center, School of Education,
 University of Wisconsin-Madison:
 ccbc.education.wisc.edu/books/pestats.asp
 5%
 7%
 10%
 27%
 50%
 L558
 BOOKS
 BOOKS
 BOOKS
 BOOKS
 BOOKS
 African
 White
 American
 Latinx
 Asian Pacific
 Animals/Other
 Indians/
 Islander/Asian
 African
 2:14 PM Jun 20, 2019 Twitt er for iPad
 4.4K Likes
 2.3K Retweets
superunfriendlyreminder:


That actually explains why we come after animals on the list of “ deaths that actually matter to white ppl”

superunfriendlyreminder: That actually explains why we come after animals on the list of “ deaths that actually matter to white ppl”

indigenous: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak just to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
indigenous: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
feministscoundrel:

This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak just to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 

feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose...

indigenous: CW CNN @CNN Follow European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed the global climate, researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1C 8:00 PM -2 Feb 2019 924 Retweets 1,321 Likes SULLDHONHS Sophia Chang Follow @sophchang "European settlers killed 56 million indigenous people over about 100 years..." 56 million. It took a long time for me to process that figure CNN @CNN European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed the global climate, researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1c 9:45 AM -3 Feb 2019 1,872 Retweets 2,388 Likes Follow @RadRoopa Replying to @sophchang And to think, the world population in 1900 was only 1.5 billion compared to today's 7.5 billion I don't know what the world pop was like in 1500 but 56 millions would've been a HUGE percentage of that. That astronomical number is definitely hard to process 9:25 PM - 3 Feb 2019 Follow @RadRoopa Replying to @RadRoopa @sophchang I just looked it up and the world pop in 1600 was about 570 million. They wiped out TEN PERCENT of the world's population. That's the equivalent of 750 million ppl today. Whoa 9:50 PM - 3 Feb 2019 evergreennightmare: red-stick-progressive: aossidhboyee: red-stick-progressive: burdenbasket: gahdamnpunk: This is insane holy fuck, this is A LOT Also that figure is way too low, modern population estimates might be as much as twice that. There were between 25 and 40 million in central Mexico alone, almost as many people in the North Amazon, almost as many in the Andes, and almost as many in the American South. All saw 80 to 99 percent population loss in the period of 2 to 3 generations. The Greater Mississippi River Basin had a population somewhere between 5 and 12 million, the Eastern Woodlands had about as many, about as many in the Central Amazon, and almost as many on the American West Coast and North West Coast respectively. All of which saw 85 to 99 percent population losses in 2 or three generations after the others. Multiple factions if European interests killed all the natives they could and destroyed all the culture and history they could. They were not limited by gender, language, religion, culture, ethnic group, nationality, geography, or time period; just every single person they could. That’s not even genocide, it’s apocalypse. Why are you all omitting the well known fact that it was not purposeful genocide but simply new microbes introduced that no one knew about at that time. Cuz that’s not true. Tw genocide, tw violence When Columbus realized the pigs they brought were getting the Islanders sick he arranged to loose as many as possible ahead of them primarily into the Benne region, I believe. Cortez loaded sickened corpses into Tenochtitlan’s aqueducts, Spain deliberately targeted the priests of Mexican society first because they knew it would severely undermine the public ability to treat disease. When the post Incan city states developed a treatment for malaria, the Spanish deliberately targeted the cities producing the quinine treatment and made it illegal to sell it to non-christians. The Spanish took all the sick and forced them at sword-point to go back to their homes instead of to the sick houses or the temples throughout the new world, and forced anyone who wasn’t sick to work in the mines or the coin factories melting and pressing their cultural treasures down into Spanish coins. The English were just as bad, they started the smallpox blankets. A lot of the loss was not deliberate infections like this but it was preventable at a million different crossroads and every European culture took the opportunity to weaponize the plagues when they could. They knew what they were doing, just cuz they didn’t know what germs were doesn’t mean they have some accidental relationship with it. Alexander the great used biological warfare after all, so it’s not like you can pretend the concept was alien to them, they wrote about it. Besides they did plenty of old fashioned killing too, there were Spanish conquistadors that estimated their own personal, individual killings might have numbered over the ten thousands. They were sure they’d killed more than ten million in “New Spain” alone. They crucified people they smashed babies on the rocks, they set fire to buildings they forced women and children into and cooked their meals over the burning corpses, they loosed war dogs on people. They sold children into sex slavery to be raped by disease riddled pedos back in Europe and if taking their virginity didn’t cure the sick creeps the native children would be killed or sometimes sent back. The English were just as bad, shooting children in front of their mothers and forcing them to mop their blood with their hair. Turning human scalps into currency. Feeding babies to dogs in front of their mothers and fathers. Killing whole villages and erasing them from their maps so that historians would think God had made it empty just for the English. The Americans after them burned crops and drove several species of bison to extinction just to starve the plains tribes. They pushed the blankets too. On top of the wars of extermination and scalp hunting and concentration and laws defining natives as non-persons so that we’d never be protected by the Constitution. And even if you wanna live in some dreamy fairytale where God just made a whoopsie and then there were no natives left, nobody forced them to erase our history. The Spanish burned every document they found to erase the literacy and literary tradition of the Central and South Americans. There are essentially three Aztec documents left and some excavated pottery, and some archeological inscriptions and that’s it. The single most advanced culture in math and anatomical medicine erased probably forever. Same to the Inca, the most advanced fiber and alloy engineers and economists gone forever. Nobody made them do that. Nobody forced the American colonizers to steal political technology and act like they invented democracy or sovereignty. Nobody forced them to build their cities on top of native ones and erase them from history forever. Baltimore was built on Chesapeake, which translates roughly to “city at the top of the great water” in most Algonquin tongues. My favorite example is Cumberland in Western MD, they didn’t even reshape the roads or anything, they paved the steps and walking paths natives had used for hundreds of years and now it’s almost impossible to drive cuz the streets are too narrow or steep. The culture that built them didn’t have horses. Phoenix AZ, called Phoenix cuz the settlers literally found an old city and “brought it back to life.” Did they save any history or cultural artifacts? No. Most cities on the east coast are like this. Nobody forced them to erase that history. Colonizers are not innocent just cuz the germs did a lot of the work of the apocalypse. (tlaxcallān had a democratic form of government)
indigenous: CW CNN
 @CNN
 Follow
 European colonizers killed so many Native
 Americans that it changed the global climate,
 researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1C
 8:00 PM -2 Feb 2019
 924 Retweets 1,321 Likes
 SULLDHONHS

 Sophia Chang
 Follow
 @sophchang
 "European settlers killed 56 million
 indigenous people over about 100 years..." 56
 million. It took a long time for me to process
 that figure
 CNN
 @CNN
 European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed
 the global climate, researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1c
 9:45 AM -3 Feb 2019
 1,872 Retweets 2,388 Likes

 Follow
 @RadRoopa
 Replying to @sophchang
 And to think, the world population in 1900
 was only 1.5 billion compared to today's 7.5
 billion
 I don't know what the world pop was like in
 1500 but 56 millions would've been a HUGE
 percentage of that.
 That astronomical number is definitely hard
 to process
 9:25 PM - 3 Feb 2019

 Follow
 @RadRoopa
 Replying to @RadRoopa @sophchang
 I just looked it up and the world pop in 1600
 was about 570 million.
 They wiped out TEN PERCENT of the world's
 population.
 That's the equivalent of 750 million ppl today.
 Whoa
 9:50 PM - 3 Feb 2019
evergreennightmare:
red-stick-progressive:

aossidhboyee:


red-stick-progressive:

burdenbasket:


gahdamnpunk:
This is insane
holy fuck, this is A LOT


Also that figure is way too low, modern population estimates might be as much as twice that. There were between 25 and 40 million in central Mexico alone, almost as many people in the North Amazon, almost as many in the Andes, and almost as many in the American South. All saw 80 to 99 percent population loss in the period of 2 to 3 generations. 
The Greater Mississippi River Basin had a population somewhere between 5 and 12 million, the Eastern Woodlands had about as many, about as many in the Central Amazon, and almost as many on the American West Coast and North West Coast respectively. All of which saw 85 to 99 percent population losses in 2 or three generations after the others.
Multiple factions if European interests killed all the natives they could and destroyed all the culture and history they could. They were not limited by gender, language, religion, culture, ethnic group, nationality, geography, or time period; just every single person they could. 
That’s not even genocide, it’s apocalypse.


Why are you all omitting the well known fact that it was not purposeful genocide but simply new microbes introduced that no one knew about at that time.


Cuz that’s not true. 
Tw genocide, tw violence
When Columbus realized the pigs they brought were getting the Islanders sick he arranged to loose as many as possible ahead of them primarily into the Benne region, I believe. Cortez loaded sickened corpses into Tenochtitlan’s aqueducts, Spain deliberately targeted the priests of Mexican society first because they knew it would severely undermine the public ability to treat disease. When the post Incan city states developed a treatment for malaria, the Spanish deliberately targeted the cities producing the quinine treatment and made it illegal to sell it to non-christians. The Spanish took all the sick and forced them at sword-point to go back to their homes instead of to the sick houses or the temples throughout the new world, and forced anyone who wasn’t sick to work in the mines or the coin factories melting and pressing their cultural treasures down into Spanish coins. The English were just as bad, they started the smallpox blankets. A lot of the loss was not deliberate infections like this but it was preventable at a million different crossroads and every European culture took the opportunity to weaponize the plagues when they could. 
They knew what they were doing, just cuz they didn’t know what germs were doesn’t mean they have some accidental relationship with it. Alexander the great used biological warfare after all, so it’s not like you can pretend the concept was alien to them, they wrote about it.
Besides they did plenty of old fashioned killing too, there were Spanish conquistadors that estimated their own personal, individual killings might have numbered over the ten thousands. They were sure they’d killed more than ten million in “New Spain” alone. They crucified people they smashed babies on the rocks, they set fire to buildings they forced women and children into and cooked their meals over the burning corpses, they loosed war dogs on people. They sold children into sex slavery to be raped by disease riddled pedos back in Europe and if taking their virginity didn’t cure the sick creeps the native children would be killed or sometimes sent back.
The English were just as bad, shooting children in front of their mothers and forcing them to mop their blood with their hair. Turning human scalps into currency. Feeding babies to dogs in front of their mothers and fathers. Killing whole villages and erasing them from their maps so that historians would think God had made it empty just for the English. 
The Americans after them burned crops and drove several species of bison to extinction just to starve the plains tribes. They pushed the blankets too. On top of the wars of extermination and scalp hunting and concentration and laws defining natives as non-persons so that we’d never be protected by the Constitution.
And even if you wanna live in some dreamy fairytale where God just made a whoopsie and then there were no natives left, nobody forced them to erase our history. The Spanish burned every document they found to erase the literacy and literary tradition of the Central and South Americans. There are essentially three Aztec documents left and some excavated pottery, and some archeological inscriptions and that’s it. The single most advanced culture in math and anatomical medicine erased probably forever. Same to the Inca, the most advanced fiber and alloy engineers and economists gone forever. Nobody made them do that. Nobody forced the American colonizers to steal political technology and act like they invented democracy or sovereignty. Nobody forced them to build their cities on top of native ones and erase them from history forever. Baltimore was built on Chesapeake, which translates roughly to “city at the top of the great water” in most Algonquin tongues. My favorite example is Cumberland in Western MD, they didn’t even reshape the roads or anything, they paved the steps and walking paths natives had used for hundreds of years and now it’s almost impossible to drive cuz the streets are too narrow or steep. The culture that built them didn’t have horses. Phoenix AZ, called Phoenix cuz the settlers literally found an old city and “brought it back to life.” Did they save any history or cultural artifacts? No. Most cities on the east coast are like this. Nobody forced them to erase that history.
Colonizers are not innocent just cuz the germs did a lot of the work of the apocalypse.

(tlaxcallān had a democratic form of government)

evergreennightmare: red-stick-progressive: aossidhboyee: red-stick-progressive: burdenbasket: gahdamnpunk: This is insane holy fuck...

indigenous: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM ebonyheartnet: jewishdragon: feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man.  Wiatiti And Portman are also BOTH jewish! Jews lifting up Jews!
indigenous: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
ebonyheartnet:
jewishdragon:

feministscoundrel:

This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 


Wiatiti And Portman are also BOTH jewish! Jews lifting up Jews!

ebonyheartnet: jewishdragon: feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was...

indigenous: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
indigenous: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
feministscoundrel:
This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 

feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose n...

indigenous: hu by Tami feminismandmedia: fairyofsomething: affinityforthestars: jumpingjacktrash: curlicuecal: uluhlynx: sweet-saccharin: if this ain’t the most beautiful mermaid you’ve ever seen… He looks so happy 10/10 a good mermaid the mermaid of happiness Reblog to have good and warm feelings ;w; 3 I think he’s actually from the Merby group. It’s a bunch dudes with facial hair who get together, put on tails, and do a photoshoot. This photoshoot gets turned into a calendar which is then sold and most (if not all) proceeds go to charity. Their most recent charity went to VPNL, which according to their website “works diligently throughout the province to change attitudes, behaviours, and social norms associated with violence. VPNL organizations provide violence prevention and early intervention services to those most at risk of experiencing violence: women, children and youth, Indigenous women and children, older persons, persons with disabilities, persons of varying race or ethnicity, LGBTQ+ persons, and persons of varying economic status.” They also currently have applications open for new merbys! Aside from it going to a great cause, it’s also a super funny cute calendar! It makes for a great gift. I got two in 2018! Oh and they’re also hella inclusive and socially conscious. One of my favorite quotes from the Merby site: “Inclusion is our jam. Humans of all genders, ethnicities, faiths, abilities and ages are welcome. Good people, doing good things, having fun the whole time – that’s who we are. Ability to grow facial hair is irrelevant – it’s the beard inside that matters most.”
indigenous: hu by Tami
feminismandmedia:

fairyofsomething:

affinityforthestars:

jumpingjacktrash:

curlicuecal:

uluhlynx:

sweet-saccharin:
if this ain’t the most beautiful mermaid you’ve ever seen…

He looks so happy


10/10 a good mermaid

the mermaid of happiness


Reblog to have good and warm feelings

;w; 3

I think he’s actually from the Merby group. It’s a bunch dudes with facial hair who get together, put on tails, and do a photoshoot. 
This photoshoot gets turned into a calendar which is then sold and most (if not all) proceeds go to charity. 
Their most recent charity went to VPNL, which according to their website  “works diligently throughout the province to change attitudes, behaviours, and social norms associated with violence. VPNL organizations provide violence prevention and early intervention services to those most at risk of experiencing violence: women, children and youth, Indigenous women and children, older persons, persons with disabilities, persons of varying race or ethnicity, LGBTQ+ persons, and persons of varying economic status.”
They also currently have applications open for new merbys!
Aside from it going to a great cause, it’s also a super funny  cute calendar! It makes for a great gift. I got two in 2018! 
Oh and they’re also hella inclusive and socially conscious. One of my favorite quotes from the Merby site: 
“Inclusion is our jam. Humans of all genders, ethnicities, faiths, abilities and ages are welcome. Good people, doing good things, having fun the whole time – that’s who we are. Ability to grow facial hair is irrelevant – it’s the beard inside that matters most.”

feminismandmedia: fairyofsomething: affinityforthestars: jumpingjacktrash: curlicuecal: uluhlynx: sweet-saccharin: if this ain’t th...

indigenous: Banana - before and after Carrot-before and after Watermelon- before and after sprachtraeume: angryfishtrap: wordnerdworld: march27thoughts: cubern: thespectacularspider-girl: jiggly-jello-squid: art-angelsz: nunyabizni: trashcanbees: asapscience: Fruits and vegetables, before and after human intervention.  Source We did a pretty good fucking job, Jesus Christ Remember this the next time you want to complain about GMO’s, we may not have done it in a lab but they still are that. Bananas looked like lemons wtf Isn’t this more of a combination of selective breeding and GMOs? Not just GMOs? Yes.  But people talk about how GMO’s are “unnatural”, yet for centuries humanity has been exploiting mutations in animals and plants to produce food for themselves. GMO’s are simply the process of inducing these mutations reliably. People hear “Lettuce being modified with scorpion DNA” and think that we’re now eating scorpions.  But, in reality, they’re taking a tiny bit of scorpion DNA and splicing it into the plant.  Why?  So the plant will produce poison that is not harmful to humans but will deter insects, reducing the use of pesticide, which CAN be harmful to humans and the environment. GMOs are producing rice that can survive flooding, which makes rice more reliable yields and will prevent food shortages in poor nations that rely on said crops for staple food. GMOs are also creating spider-goat hybrids.  Why? So we can splice web production into the goat’s udders.  We’ll be able to spin huge quantities of spider silk, enough to reliably create spider silk cables and ropes, which have more tensile strength than steel. I for one am glad I live in a time where watermelons aren’t giant tomato abominations The issue with GMOs is that corporations like Monsanto are patenting GMOs and arresting indigenous farmers for cross pollinating with they seeds. But there is nothing dangerous about the science. ^This. The problem isn’t the science, it’s what capitalism does with that science. this should be in the largest letters we’ve got, plastered everywhere until it gets through people’s heads: The problem isn’t the science, it’s what capitalism does with that science. Did you just say spider goats? He said spider goats. Did you all read him talking about spider goats or am I hallucinating
indigenous: Banana - before and after
 Carrot-before and after
 Watermelon- before and after
sprachtraeume:

angryfishtrap:


wordnerdworld:

march27thoughts:

cubern:

thespectacularspider-girl:

jiggly-jello-squid:

art-angelsz:

nunyabizni:


trashcanbees:

asapscience:

Fruits and vegetables, before and after human intervention. 
Source


We did a pretty good fucking job, Jesus Christ

Remember this the next time you want to complain about GMO’s, we may not have done it in a lab but they still are that.


Bananas looked like lemons wtf


Isn’t this more of a combination of selective breeding and GMOs? Not just GMOs?

Yes.  But people talk about how GMO’s are “unnatural”, yet for centuries humanity has been exploiting mutations in animals and plants to produce food for themselves.
GMO’s are simply the process of inducing these mutations reliably.
People hear “Lettuce being modified with scorpion DNA” and think that we’re now eating scorpions.  But, in reality, they’re taking a tiny bit of scorpion DNA and splicing it into the plant.  Why?  So the plant will produce poison that is not harmful to humans but will deter insects, reducing the use of pesticide, which CAN be harmful to humans and the environment.
GMOs are producing rice that can survive flooding, which makes rice more reliable yields and will prevent food shortages in poor nations that rely on said crops for staple food.
GMOs are also creating spider-goat hybrids.  Why? So we can splice web production into the goat’s udders.  We’ll be able to spin huge quantities of spider silk, enough to reliably create spider silk cables and ropes, which have more tensile strength than steel.

I for one am glad I live in a time where watermelons aren’t giant tomato abominations


The issue with GMOs is that corporations like Monsanto are patenting GMOs and arresting indigenous farmers for cross pollinating with they seeds. But there is nothing dangerous about the science.

^This.
The problem isn’t the science, it’s what capitalism does with that science.

this should be in the largest letters we’ve got, plastered everywhere until it gets through people’s heads:
The problem isn’t the science, it’s what capitalism does with that science.


Did you just say spider goats? He said spider goats. Did you all read him talking about spider goats or am I hallucinating

sprachtraeume: angryfishtrap: wordnerdworld: march27thoughts: cubern: thespectacularspider-girl: jiggly-jello-squid: art-angelsz:...

indigenous: Nathan Phillips had a standoff with MAGA-hat wearing students. But here’s the real message that he wants the world to know. indigenous nativeamerican native indigenousrights nathanphillips washingtondc
indigenous: Nathan Phillips had a standoff with MAGA-hat wearing students. But here’s the real message that he wants the world to know. indigenous nativeamerican native indigenousrights nathanphillips washingtondc

Nathan Phillips had a standoff with MAGA-hat wearing students. But here’s the real message that he wants the world to know. indigenous na...