a-spoon-is-born:

trapbuddha:

adumbrant:

nirvanatrill:

Albert Einstein teaching a physics class at Lincoln university (HCBU in Pennsylvania) in 1946

Sure as hell never mention that about him.

HOMIE

His anti-racism views and work are often totally ignored by historians.

a-spoon-is-born:

trapbuddha:

adumbrant:

nirvanatrill:

Albert Einstein teaching a physics class at Lincoln university (HCBU in Pennsylvania) in 1946

Sure as hell never mention that about him.

HOMIE

His anti-racism views and work are often totally ignored by historians.

(via pocketfulofgeek)

colorsofsocialjustice:

glory-to-cobrastan:

shabangles:

When I start to get emotional I immediately think “I’m so gay” and this is because straight people actually don’t have emotions

this is false and heterophobic. straight people have a panorama of emotions including:

  • outrage
  • jealousy
  • Situational Benevolence (aka “don’t fight hate w/ hate”)
  • sports
  • umami, the “Fifth Emotion”
  • TGIF

This post actually should be classed as a biohazard.
-Orange

anothercleverjedimindtrick:

sneakyfeets:

If you can’t recite every word of this commercial by heart you probably weren’t born in the 90’s

This was like every other commercial they played.

(via jazzie560)

siryouarebeingmocked:

SYABM #comic 04 “Undercover Color Commentary”

"I Shouldn’t Have to Dip My Nails In a Drink to Reduce My Risk of Rape"; Time.com editorial by Soraya Chemaly

Here’s the Imgur thread that inspired this comic, which has some lovely comments, including the suggestion that it should come in a men’s version. I had thought that SJWs were supporting Undercover Colors, but according to Know Your Meme, reaction among them has been…mixed.

I find it appalling that there are so many feminists who want rape to be fought, as long as it doesn’t involve treating women like adults with any responsibility for their own safety. I’ve even seen some argue that teaching women anti-rape tips just means some other girl is going to be raped. No only is this a Perfect Solution fallacy, it treats rape as some sort of hot potato that’s passed from one woman to the next.

A lot of college programs that teach students how to be safer are pushed for and run by feminists who sincerely want to make women safer. Which means that the people getting called misogynist, Patriarchal victim-blamers for giving safety tips may well be other feminists.

Elsewhen, in Soraya Chemaly.

(via colorsofsocialjustice)

Tags: chinchilla

xion1212:

eren-jaeger-is-fucking-awesome:

thefleshmustgrow:

like for agender groot

reblog for agender groot

ignore for unnecessary gendering 

I haven’t seen Guardians of The Galaxy but from what I know, the voice actor was male. I mean, Groot very well could have been female depending on who voiced them. It’s not really the writer’s fault.

Groot is male. He’s the king of his tree planet (Planet X) at this point in the comics. With a wife and children.

(via colorsofsocialjustice)

innominepatriarchy:

dumblr—feminist:

So why are men suddenly showing up as victims? Every comedian has a prison rape joke and prosecutions of sexual crimes against men are still rare. But gender norms are shaking loose in a way that allows men to identify themselves—if the survey is sensitive and specific enough—as vulnerable. A recent analysis of BJS data, for example, turned up that 46 percent of male victims reported a female perpetrator. [Full Article]

Data is overwhelmingly now showing that there are many victims of rape who are male and by a female. SO many sources. Men are victims of sexual assault as well, almost at the same rate as females but because of how the law is defined it’s harder to charge women.

We concluded that federal surveys detect a high prevalence of sexual victimization among men—in many circumstances similar to the prevalence found among women. We identified factors that perpetuate misperceptions about men’s sexual victimization: reliance on traditional gender stereotypes, outdated and inconsistent definitions, and methodological sampling biases that exclude inmates. We recommend changes that move beyond regressive gender assumptions, which can harm both women and men. [Source]
Feminists on here constantly scream TEACH MEN NOT TO RAPE, in fact THIS ARTICLE includes 5 HELPFUL ways to teach men not to rape. However if 46% of rape victims are male, and a lot of the time they are reporting WOMEN ARE DOING IT, then where is this crash course for women to teach THEM not to rape? Because women are raping men it’s just going ignored, or they aren’t charged because the law and how rape is defined.
males and females carried out sexual violence at strikingly similar rates after the age of 18 — 52% of males and 48% of females.[Source}
My point being that feminists seem to have these stupid plans to teach men not to rape when sources and statistics are saying women are rapists to, not only to men but other women.
43 percent of lesbians have experienced rape, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner compared to 35 percent of heterosexual women according to 2010 CDC statistics. [Source]
My point in all of this is statistics, studies, and witness testimonies have MORE than proven that women rape too and almost at the same rate as men. So if you have this MASTER plan to teach men not to rape, you better teach women not to rape too because they seem to be JUST as much of a problem in this.

(via colorsofsocialjustice)

Tags: rape tw

appledoze:

Social Justice

image

Tumblr “Social Justice”

image

(via colorsofsocialjustice)

heyitspj:

self-imposed-exile:

heyitspj:

Things being heterosexual means

  • Attracted to the opposite sex

Things being heterosexual doesn’t mean

  • Evil
  • Bigoted
  • Rude
  • Hateful
  • Close minded
  • Superficial
  • Homophobic

oh my god a straight person’s feelings were actually hurt enough to make this aaahahahahahahah

poor straight people

Except I’m not straight

image

(via hamsterology)

haitianhistory:

Today’s term/concept is: HISTORIOGRAPHY 

So, what does this word mean in the context of historical research? 

Historiography usually refers to all the work on a given historical topic and/or the study of how historians have dealt with historical subject matters.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “In its most general sense, the term refers to the study of historians’ methods and practices. Moreover, “historiography becomes itself historical when we recognize that these frameworks of assumptions about historical knowledge and reasoning change over time. On this assumption, the history of historical thinking and writing is itself an interesting subject. How did historians of various periods in human history conduct their study and presentation of history?" (Source)
Trent University defines historiography as “a summary of the historical writings on a particular topic … It identifies the major thinkers and arguments, and establishes connections between them. If there have been major changes in the way a particular topic has been approached over time, the historiography identifies them.” (Source)

So, to put it plainly, historiography can be understood as the the body of historical writing on a topic and the history of how historians have approached a particular topic over time. 

⇒ For example, if you encounter in your readings: “The Historiography on the Haitian Revolution is very large” It usually means → ”Lots of stuff have been written about the Haitian Revolution.”
Historiography of course, does not only refer to the grouping of works on a topic, as we have seen already, it also focuses on the changes in historical methodology. 

So, historiography evolves over time? Why?

Historians can rarely escape their own time. This is not to say that the historical discipline is entirely subjective, rather, this is to suggest that historians do not write in vacuums. Historiographical essays are thus important because they help us see how the methodology in studying a particular topic has changed over time. 
⇒ For example, in the 1960s, most (but not all) historians favoured an approach that gave a significant importance to economy and were often interested in making Marxist and class-based analysis of History. This is not necessarily true today when many historians prefer an analysis which gives more space to culture (hence, you will often hear references to a "cultural" or "linguistic turn" in History). 
Now, this change in the way historians understand events rarely means they debate over the occurrence of those events (although, it does happen), — what it actually means is that historians find that some approches highlight factors that better explain historical events than others. Historians’ major task is not simply to narrate events, their work also involves looking at the relationship between various instances (that is, their causal relationship) in explaining historical events. (To make this text more digestible, I will save you a discussion on the problems historians face with narration and causality, just remember that the two have an influence on historiography.)
So, as just mentioned, historiography helps us see how historical writing changes, in part, because historians often take different approches with time.
⇒ For example, for a long time, the dominent historiography on the causes of World War I suggested that the Great War was fought between European powers for colonies (i.e. the surproduction of goods forced European capitalist to pressure their own government to support their adventures in foreign lands in search of the new markets). Other historians, who do not necessarily completely reject the previous explanation, argue however that nationalism is better in articulating the drive to go to war. Historiography also suggest that we should not neglect the importance of European alliance system before WWI (i.e. the “domino effect”). More importantly, most (but not all) historians who have favoured the colonies and market explanation tended to be further towards the left (Marxist, Leninist and so on) in their analysis. (Notice “tended’ is in italics.)
At any rate, historiography is a complex term but it is necessary to understand it in order to comprehend some of the work historians do (and to grasp the real nature of most of their disputes). 
To recapitulate, in most instances, historiography is:
The body of work on a particular historical topic (i.e. : the historiography on the Haitian Revolution, the 20th century historiography on the French Revolution, the historiography on Thomas Jefferson…)
The “history of history” (the study how historians have dealt with particular topics, with a special importance given to the context in which their work was written. This usually emplies analyzing the approach(es) historians have favoured to write about History (i.e.: was this historian sensible to the Marxist turn in History, the Postmodern turn in History, the Cultural turn in History, the Subaltern and Postcolonial turn in History …?))
Warning: Before using a term, always make sure you are comfortable with its meaning and that it won’t be placed in your text simply as an ornament. If unsure, consult an appropriate dictionary or a Professor. 

haitianhistory:

Today’s term/concept is: HISTORIOGRAPHY 

So, what does this word mean in the context of historical research? 

Historiography usually refers to all the work on a given historical topic and/or the study of how historians have dealt with historical subject matters.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “In its most general sense, the term refers to the study of historians’ methods and practices. Moreover, “historiography becomes itself historical when we recognize that these frameworks of assumptions about historical knowledge and reasoning change over time. On this assumption, the history of historical thinking and writing is itself an interesting subject. How did historians of various periods in human history conduct their study and presentation of history?" (Source)

Trent University defines historiography as “a summary of the historical writings on a particular topic … It identifies the major thinkers and arguments, and establishes connections between them. If there have been major changes in the way a particular topic has been approached over time, the historiography identifies them.” (Source)

So, to put it plainly, historiography can be understood as the the body of historical writing on a topic and the history of how historians have approached a particular topic over time. 

⇒ For example, if you encounter in your readings: “The Historiography on the Haitian Revolution is very large” It usually means → ”Lots of stuff have been written about the Haitian Revolution.”

Historiography of course, does not only refer to the grouping of works on a topic, as we have seen already, it also focuses on the changes in historical methodology. 

So, historiography evolves over time? Why?

Historians can rarely escape their own time. This is not to say that the historical discipline is entirely subjective, rather, this is to suggest that historians do not write in vacuums. Historiographical essays are thus important because they help us see how the methodology in studying a particular topic has changed over time. 

⇒ For example, in the 1960s, most (but not all) historians favoured an approach that gave a significant importance to economy and were often interested in making Marxist and class-based analysis of History. This is not necessarily true today when many historians prefer an analysis which gives more space to culture (hence, you will often hear references to a "cultural" or "linguistic turn" in History). 

Now, this change in the way historians understand events rarely means they debate over the occurrence of those events (although, it does happen), — what it actually means is that historians find that some approches highlight factors that better explain historical events than others. Historians’ major task is not simply to narrate events, their work also involves looking at the relationship between various instances (that is, their causal relationship) in explaining historical events. (To make this text more digestible, I will save you a discussion on the problems historians face with narration and causality, just remember that the two have an influence on historiography.)

So, as just mentioned, historiography helps us see how historical writing changes, in part, because historians often take different approches with time.

⇒ For example, for a long time, the dominent historiography on the causes of World War I suggested that the Great War was fought between European powers for colonies (i.e. the surproduction of goods forced European capitalist to pressure their own government to support their adventures in foreign lands in search of the new markets). Other historians, who do not necessarily completely reject the previous explanation, argue however that nationalism is better in articulating the drive to go to war. Historiography also suggest that we should not neglect the importance of European alliance system before WWI (i.e. the “domino effect”). More importantly, most (but not all) historians who have favoured the colonies and market explanation tended to be further towards the left (Marxist, Leninist and so on) in their analysis. (Notice “tended’ is in italics.)

At any rate, historiography is a complex term but it is necessary to understand it in order to comprehend some of the work historians do (and to grasp the real nature of most of their disputes). 

To recapitulate, in most instances, historiography is:

  • The body of work on a particular historical topic (i.e. : the historiography on the Haitian Revolution, the 20th century historiography on the French Revolution, the historiography on Thomas Jefferson…)
  • The “history of history” (the study how historians have dealt with particular topics, with a special importance given to the context in which their work was written. This usually emplies analyzing the approach(es) historians have favoured to write about History (i.e.: was this historian sensible to the Marxist turn in History, the Postmodern turn in History, the Cultural turn in History, the Subaltern and Postcolonial turn in History …?))

Warning: Before using a term, always make sure you are comfortable with its meaning and that it won’t be placed in your text simply as an ornament. If unsure, consult an appropriate dictionary or a Professor. 

(via megillien)