Learn Yourself

Friday, March 14









[snip for length]

[snip bc i’m gonna be fucking addressing this]

snip bc you’re a piece of shit and i’m going to be addressing this]




And stop stop what the FUCK this movie literally portrays Mongols as gray hulking evil beasts—look, their form is barely fucking human. Like how is this not racist?

You’re going to shit on MY culture and call it sexist for shit YOU KNOW 0 ABOUT, and then you’re gonna just ignore the blatant racism perpetrated against the people you’re praising.

Shut the fuck up. Mulan is not and never was about feminism. Stop trying to fucking warp my culture into your fucking little white feminism views. Sit the fuck down.


i hv much to say but i am on my phone
i will deal w this hot steaming mess later

i’m on my computer and at home now so i can deal with this cesspit of misinformation and assholery

first, you are wrong. you are wrong, you are wrong, and i sincerely hope the lot of you and any other ignorant asshat sits on an anthill.

Well that might have to do with the fact that he’s a Hun.

he is not a hun. disney might say a thing, but that does not mean a thing is correct. FIRST, the closest relationship the huns have to chinese history are the xiongnu, but the evidence for that is flimsy at best and is far from being widely accepted

Women were free to hunt and fight along side of the men, could choose their own husbands and divorce him if she choose to. There were even records of clans being led by women leaders. 

yeah, and? you seem to be under the frankly birdbrained idea that chinese notions of gender roles are fixed, and based entirely around the strict neo-confucianist gender roles of the song dynasty, but that’s far from true and chinese society is far from static, even during the song.

tang and song dynasty women were allowed to own businesses, own capital, divorce their husbands, let’s not fucking pretend like china doesn’t have female rulers who, though only one of them was a legitimate sitting emperor, wielded significant amounts of power

that’s not to mention the fact that china has a loooooooongass motherfucking tradition of female warriors, most of whom, UNlike hua mulan, did NOT disguise their genders yet STILL rose to distinction, and most of whom, i might add, ARE VENERATED

ha. ha. funny thing, that. esp given that in most CHINESE depictions of hua mulan, she is the subject of the northern wei court. who ruled the norther wei? you might ask. well, friend, it was the tuoba! which is why the dynasty is also sometimes called the tuoba wei. fun fact, their capital was actually in my hometown of datong, which is where (and when) they carved the yungang grottoes. before they moved it to luoyang. fuck luoyang. now who were the tuoba, you might ask? well, friend, they were a NOMADIC MONGOLIC PEOPLE.

or or or! it could have something to do with the fact that north chinese (along with other vanquished people like the khitans of the liao dynasty the jurchens of the jin and the koreans of the goryeo) were treated as the second-lowest rung of the mongol social ladder! OR the fact that south chinese were treated like the LOWEST rung of that ladder! and god, why would the people at the top of that ladder want to have anything to do with the people at the bottom? but yo, what the hell do i know, i’m just a descendent of those second-lowest people and a willing female participant of this “misogynistic chinese culture” you clearly have so nuanced and wholistic an understanding of.

also, just as a by the way. the khans did, to some extent, assimilate.

but hey! thanks for weighing in on a history you clearly have no education in, a culture you know nothing about, and a folktale that has nothing to do with and which has been destroyed by people like you!!!!

I’ve been fact slapped.

(Source: subtubitles)

393,293 notes
reblogged via the-treble
Wednesday, February 19

museumofmodernerotica asked: Maybe this is a crazy question, but how did Europeans know what Africans looked like? I know that some of the paintings here are of North Africans/Middle Easterners, but others clearly depict people born south of the Sahara. I've heard of Prester John but I never imagined that medieval Europeans were aware that Prester John would have had brown skin. Am I missing something?




Like. There are a lot of things I could say here. But I’m just going to do my best to answer your question, and the answer is either very simple or very complicated, depending on your current point of view.

1. “They” knew what people with brown skin looked like because people with brown skin had been there literally THE ENTIRE TIME. Some (and father back, ALL) of “them” had brown skin themselves.

2. “People with Brown Skin” and “Europeans” are not separate and mutually exclusive groups.

3. No matter how far back you go, the mythical time that you’re looking for, when all-white, racially and culturally isolated Europe was “real”, will continue to recede from your grasp until it winkles out the like imaginary place it is.

We can just keep going back. In every area, from all walks of life, rich and poor, kings and peasants, artists and iconoclasts, before there were countries and continents, before there were white people.

Russia, 1899:


Switzerland, c. 1800:


Netherlands, 1658:


Poland, 1539:


Germany, 1480s:


Spain, 1420s:


France, 1332:


Scotland, England, France, 1280s:


France, 1220s:


England, 1178:


Belgium, 1084:


Greece, c. 1000:


Spain, 850s:


Throughout Europe, 800s-500s:


England, c. 300 AD:


Scotland, c. 100 AD:



Italy, 79 AD:


Greece, 170 B.C.:


Greece, 300 B. C.:


Greece, 400s B.C.


Greece, 500s B.C.:


Egypt, 1200s B.C.:


Crete (Minoan), 1600 B.C.:


Crete (Minoan), early 2000s B.C.:


Romania, 34,000 B.C.:


The time when “EVERYONE” in Europe was White does not exist. They knew what people with brown skin looked like because they were there. They knew what “Africans” looked like because they were there, and they weren’t “they”, they were us, or you. I think what you’re missing is something that never existed.

That is wrong. Black people in Europe came from Africa. You are forgetting that people traveled long distances even in Antiquity. There are no, and there never were indigenous black people in Europe.

And half of pictures posted are not really black people.


I just can’t argue with the exactly zero sources you provided for those statements. We all have to go home now.

28,398 notes
reblogged via doctorofdragons
Wednesday, February 5
If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also
Matt 5:39

This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.   

(via thefullnessofthefaith)

THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you. 

(via guardianrock)

I can attest to the original poster’s comments. A few years back I took an intensive seminar on faith-based progressive activism, and we spent an entire unit discussing how many of Jesus’ instructions and stories were performative protests designed to shed light on and ridicule the oppressions of that time period as a way to emphasize the absurdity of the social hierarchy and give people the will and motivation to make changes for a more free and equal society.

For example, the next verse (Matthew 5:40) states “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” In that time period, men traditionally wore a shirt and a coat-like garment as their daily wear. To sue someone for their shirt was to put them in their place - suing was generally only performed to take care of outstanding debts, and to be sued for one’s shirt meant that the person was so destitute the only valuable thing they could repay with was their own clothing. However, many cultures at that time (including Hebrew peoples) had prohibitions bordering on taboo against public nudity, so for a sued man to surrender both his shirt and his coat was to turn the system on its head and symbolically state, in a very public forum, that “I have no money with which to repay this person, but they are so insistent on taking advantage of my poverty that I am leaving this hearing buck-ass naked. His greed is the cause of a shameful public spectacle.”

All of a sudden an action of power (suing someone for their shirt) becomes a powerful symbol of subversion and mockery, as the suing patron either accepts the coat (and therefore full responsibility as the cause of the other man’s shameful display) or desperately chases the protester around trying to return his clothes to him, making a fool of himself in front of his peers and the entire gathered community.

Additionally, the next verse (Matthew 5:41; “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”) was a big middle finger to the Romans who had taken over Judea and were not seen as legitimate authority by the majority of the population there. Roman law stated that a centurion on the march could require a Jew (and possibly other civilians as well, although I don’t remember explicitly) to carry his pack at any time and for any reason for one mile along the road (and because of the importance of the Roman highway system in maintaining rule over the expansive empire, the roads tended to be very well ordered and marked), however hecould not require any service beyond the next mile marker. For a Jewish civilian to carry a centurion’s pack for an entire second mile was a way to subvert the authority of the occupying forces. If the civilian wouldn’t give the pack back at the end of the first mile, the centurion would either have to forcibly take it back or report the civilian to his commanding officer (both of which would result in discipline being taken against the soldier for breaking Roman law) or wait until the civilian volunteered to return the pack, giving the Judean native implicit power over the occupying Roman and completely subverting the power structure of the Empire. Can you imagine how demoralizing that must have been for the highly ordered Roman armies that patrolled the region?

Jesus was a pacifist, but his teachings were in no way passive. There’s a reason he was practically considered a terrorist by the reigning powers, and it wasn’t because he healed the sick and fed the hungry.

(via central-avenue)

 yo i like thisi would like to know more about thiswhere does one learn more about this seconded like whoa

(via wanderingoff)



(via cherrypieboy)

Every time I see this post it has more stuff on it and it makes me so happy

(via gallifrey-feels)

the word of God for the people of God (via queennubian)

85,720 notes
reblogged via cable-knitted


Weapon Wednesday: The Horse

The horse is not just a form of transportation, but is a weapon in itself. The genus Equus is thought to have evolved over 4 million years ago in North America, specialising in being able to eat the grass of the steppelands and run away from predators. North American horses later became extinct, possibly due to hunting by humans, although various species of horse, asses and zebras thrived in the Old World. When they first appear in the archaeological record they are probably being hunted by early Modern Humans, as they are depicted with other prey species in Upper Palaeolithic cave art. By about 4,000 years ago humans domesticated the horse, possibly in a number of centres in Central Asia, Western Asia, and also Arabia. It seems not entirely certain that horses were actually used to ride on but certain authors certainly thought they were. The Royal Standard of Ur is thought to show the first chariot, 4-wheeled and dated to 2600-2400 BC, but it is questionable whether these vehicles were drawn by horses or asses, or possibly even a cross between the two! Certainly within a few hundred years two-wheeled chariots are widespread, and are often found in burials with what are recognizably domesticated horses.

Chariot warfare continued to be an important aspect of warfare across the Old World for some centuries, the Battle of Kadesh in about 1274 BC between the Egypt under Ramesses II and the Hittite Empire under Muwatalli II being arguably the most famous chariot battle of this time. But chariots were only useful on flat terrain and for relatively light fighting, using archery and javelins, it could never charge straight into a force of foot soldiers who were determined to stand their ground. The tactic of chariot warfare is actually preserved in chess, for the “L” shaped path of the Knight is actually that of a chariot, charging forward and then attacking from the side. Eventually chariots became used more for ceremony, transport, symbolism, and for racing.

For many years the balance between cavalry and infantry was quite balanced, with exceptions like the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC in which Parthian horse-archers annihilated a much larger army of Roman infantry under Crassus. Eventually Rome fell to horseman, and it is [ossible that these horseman used an important new invetion: the stirrup. The origins of the stirrup are not fully known. The horse-peoples of Central Asia probably knew how to ride before they could walk, and had little need for such devices, but there is occasionally evidence of them. In India there was an early tradition of the horse-rider putting their big toes through a loop of rope on each side of the horse, but this is not a stirrup. Whatever the stirrups true origins, it was adopted in a large scale in China, with clear evidence in the 4the century AD and being widespread by the 5th century.

Stirrups became widespread across the Old World, and horse-borne warriors came to dominate societies from the knights of Europe to the Samurai of Japan, and everywhere in between. The stirrup defined a new period, the Age of the Stirrup, which lends justification for extending the term “Mediaeval” for the period between the Ancient cultures and the beginnings of gunpowder. During the mediaeval period some horse warriors, and their horse became very heavily armoured, and all of society was geared to maintain these warriors. However, even after gunpowder swept the heavily armoured warrior from the battlefields, the horse remained important in warfrae until the 20th century.

To this day humans have a very close relationship with horses, and the symbolism of the free running horse is still quite potent. In the Chinese calendar the Year of the Horse is a dynamic year for freedom, travel, and adventure.

Image information

  1. Frieze from the tomb of Zuo Biao, sandstone 110cm long, dated by inscription to 150 AD, Eastern Han dynasty, Mamaozhuang village, China, # 925.25.22.N
  2. Model of a chariot pulled by two horses, Ceramic (earthenware, modelled), wooden parts modern reconstruction, 19th-16th century BC, Middle Bronze; Old Babylonian, Ishchali, Mesopotamia (Iraq), 17.5 cm wide, #931.44.58, on display in the Wirth Gallery of the Middle East,  (ROM Photography).
  3. Silver didrachm with Jupiter on a chariot; struck silver; Rome, Italy; Roman Republican period; about 225 BC; 989.117.1, on display in the Eaton Gallery of Rome (ROM Photography).
  4. This Chinese Burial figure of a horse is dated to the mid 7th century, note the stirrup.Moulded earthenware with hand-made components and glaze, Tang Dynasty, 33cm high, from the George Crofts Collection, #918.21.278, on display in the Joey and Toby Tanenbaum Gallery of China.

More information

  • Robert Mason is a ROM archaeologist. See his previous posts HERE. Follow him on twitter HERE.
  • Original post found HERE.
  • All images by ROM Photography.

Post by Robert Mason. Last updated: February 1st, 2014

56 notes
reblogged via romkids
Thursday, January 30





these screenshots are from the documentary which can be viewed here

3,870 notes
reblogged via the-treble
Wednesday, July 10



All of them should be taken off of our money.

Americans complain about politicians today yet continue to worship the ones of history like they were any fucking different than the pieces of shit we have in Congress/White House today.

George Washington owned hundreds of slaves. Pennsylvania had a gradual abolition law… but, oh… Washington got around that. The Washingtons would rotate their slaves in and out of the state every 6 months so that the slaves could never establish residency in Pennsylvania (called “dower slaves”). He sent weapons and money to the French slave masters during the Haitian Revolution… and he signed the Fugitive Slave Act, which allowed White slave masters re-enslave  freemen (I guess he had just cause since his own slaves were also running away…Henry Washington, Oney Judge, Hercules…). Fuck him.

Abraham Lincoln was racist. He didn’t intend on freeing a damn soul.. and if it weren’t for the pompous idiot Southerners who were stupid enough to think they could secede and the work of Frederick Douglass and other abolitionists, Blacks would probably still be slaves today. And in the first place, Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebellion states, meaning, the states Lincoln had no reach or control over. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races” Fuck him.

Today, White scholars try desperately to make Alexander Hamilton seem like a good guy. Idgaf if he spoke out against slavery sometimes, he owned slaves too. He owned another human beings’ life! He did support Toussaint Louverture in Haiti though. Maybe if he would have lived longer, he would have done more to redeem himself and this nation, but he got shot in a duel and died.


My fellow Tennessean Andrew Jackson was Hitler. He murdered Natives and stole their lands. And, slavery was the source of all his wealth. Of all the men on our currency, he is the most despicable and vile.

Ulysses S. Grant… Fought for the Union army. Tried to squash the KKK (but failed).. tried to enact a Civil Rights Act. Nothing bad about him, right?  Wrong. He also owned slaves. And his infamous General Order No. 11 expelled all Jews from Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi (his area of military control). Under his presidency, Little Big Horn happened. Natives in the West were murdered and their land stolen under his watch. He mitigated his government’s Native policy of brutality. Fuck him.

Benjamin Franklin spoke about “liberty” but owned slaved for most of his life! Yeah, right before he died, he became an abolitionist … but what can we make of that when he also wrote that the importation of slaves will “darken” the American race, which should remain “lovely” and White. He was a huge anti-Semite. He argued that Jews should not be allowed in the country. Fuck him. And as much as America likes to slut shame, it’s odd that they put an international hoe like Franklin on their money.

Thomas Jefferson was a racist piece of shit. Nearly every fucking Black stereotype that we have to endure today can be found in Thomas Jefferson’s writings. How the fuck can you write “All men are created equal” and own slaves and believe Black people to be inferior at the same damn time? He wrote shit like Black women have big sexual appetites like primates in African jungles…. and yet at the same time, he’s fucking raping Sally Hemmings, his dead wife’s sister and his slave.

And Americans worship these men. They worship them. It’s disgusting. Until they take these politicians off U.S. money, the U.S. will continue to be the sham it’s always been. The American nightmare it’s always been.

And to any apologists out there.. who think “Well.. it was a different time.. blah blah blah.” Please, save me your naive cliched responses veiled in the racism of YOUR time. There were many people out there who didn’t believe what these men believed. There were many people who didn’t do this stuff. They spoke out against this stuff. The men themselves knew they were full of shit the moment they signed the version of the Constitution that didn’t have the slaves freedom included in it. They knew they were  full of shit just like you know you’re full shit of shit today as you sit back and watch the prison industrial complex claim Black and Brown lives and as the military kills thousands of people abroad and you utter not one peep until Paula Deen is fired… then you’re outraged. Fuck you too.


10,914 notes
reblogged via randomactsofchaos
Tuesday, May 7


Taiwanese calligrapher Shao Lan uses a pictorial and story-telling approach to teach Chinese characters. Her website, Chineasy, is fantastic: when you click on a character, related and more complex characters appear. This will be one of many resources that I’ll use when I start learning Chinese characters next month. (For now: speaking and pronunciation practice). 

Learn more about her project by reading The World of Chinese’s review or visiting her website

Images: screenshots from Chineasy. 

360 notes
reblogged via chos
Tuesday, February 19
614 notes
reblogged via randomactsofchaos
Thursday, December 20
53 notes
reblogged via randomactsofchaos
Tuesday, December 18

On “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”


Rebloggable by request:

Your argument is invalid. Youre basically saying that someone can either use guns to kill someone fast or they can use something other then a gun to get the same fucking result. So should we outlaw baseball bats because I can take one swing a someones fucking dome and kill them instantly? Fucking stupid. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Doesn’t matter the weapon.

image Anonymous

image Meg at Cognitive Dissonance:

Yep, you’re right. Obviously, a gun sitting on a table is not going to simply kill someone. However, you cannot deny that a semi-automatic rifle makes it easier to kill larger amounts of people in a shorter amount of time from further away.

Ever heard of dozens of people being killed and wounded by a mass-batting in a movie theater? Or a drive-by knifing committed by an assailant from the window of a moving car? Doubtful. Though pro-gun proponents have pointed to the case of children being knifed in China on the same day as those slain in Connecticut, unlike the children in Newtown, all the children in China survived the attack.

Or how about the number of homicides committed with firearms versus other methods? From the Bureau of Justice Statistics:


In 2009, the latest year for which the Center for Disease Control has national statistics, there were 16,799 deaths from homicide in the U.S. — of those, 11,493 were committed with a firearm. That means of the homicides committed in the U.S., 32% used something other than a firearm. According to the Department of Justice, the likelihood of surviving a violent attack increases dramatically without the presence of a firearm by either civilian or criminal.

The Harvard School of Public Health debunks several myths surrounding guns, primarily that guns are used in self-defense all the time (false), and that guns do not increase the rate of homicide (false again). From the University of Utah School of Medicine:

A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home. Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession.

The University of Utah also finds that when firearms are used for hunting, accidental injuries are very rare — more rare than among all gun owners. That’s the only time guns are used as tools, but their purpose is the same across the board — to kill something. 

I make the tool distinction because a baseball bat, a car, a knife, rope, your hands etc. have a purpose other than killing something or someone. A gun’s purpose is to kill. Period. Even when a gun is used by a police officer, a homeowner, or a hunter in a legitimate manner, the intent is to kill that at which said person is aiming. 

I think we need to examine a culture where it’s easier to purchase a gun than to get mental health treatment. It’s easier to get a gun than to get a driver’s license in many states.

Here’s a thought experiment for you. Meet Nixon:


My husband and I adopted him in 2009. In order to do so, we had to get a background check, pay an application fee, fill out this form, and then wait to be approved. Obviously, we were, but the animal rescue has rejected numerous unfit people.

Now, in 2005, I walked into a gun show in Wyoming, and purchased a Springfield bolt action 30.06 Rifle for my then-husband, and a .40 Glock for myself. I bought from two private sellers and neither checked my ID. I actually asked the dealer I purchased the Glock from if I needed to give him my ID, or if he needed to do a background check or anything, and he laughed. He explained that our forefathers didn’t need “a fucking background check — they lie anyhow” and that the Second Amendment was better than any ID. He ended his speech by throwing in a free box of bullets, and said, “God bless the Second Amendment!”


In conclusion, it was harder and more arduous to adopt my cat than to purchase a gun. I’m glad it’s tough to adopt. It’s fucked that it’s harder than buying the guns.

Unlike many people who own guns, I was in the military and know how to shoot. But I no longer own guns. I don’t know if my ex-husband does, nor do I care. One big reason I got rid of mine? See above.



1,200 notes
reblogged via