"less developed countries"? you mean "more exploited countries"

(via djezhofmacedon)

his-name-was-writ-in-water replied to your post “So apparently Anita Sarkeesian, of the magnificent Tropes vs Women in…”

Anita Sarkeesian is hardly a paragon of excellent conduct on the internet herself. That doesn’t excuse this sort of behaviour, but don’t put her on a pedestal.

Oh, believe me, I’m not so foolish as to make angels out of mere fallible mortals! My outrage is over the conduct itself, rather than who it was directed at.

So apparently Anita Sarkeesian, of the magnificent Tropes vs Women in Video Games series (a project which "aims to examine the plot devices and patterns most often associated with female characters in gaming from asystemic, big picture perspective”), was threatened by butthurt misogynists over her latest episode to the point of having to leave her own home and contact the police…

Stay classy, gaming community!


tfw someone you really like reblog a from someone you really dislike


E. R. Bills is a Texas historian. His previous book “Texas Obscurities: Stories of the Peculiar, Exceptional & Nefarious”, published in 2013, is a compilation of unusual happenings, peoples, and events across Texas. One of the stories contained in “Texas Obscurities” is “Slocum Massacre.” In the first paragraph of “Slocum Massacre” Bills explains how the Texas State Historical Association Handbook of Texas Outline describes Slocum by 1) referring to how the town got its name, a reference to telling the postmaster that finally getting a post office in 1898 had been a “slow come”, 2) describing the population at around 45 in 1914, around 200 in 1927, and, 3) the tornado that demolished the area in 1929. What was totally omitted was what Bills refers to as the “population reduction” in 1910. That population reduction occurred on the 29th of July, 1910 when hundreds of white citizens, armed with pistols, shotguns and rifles converged on Slocum, shooting and killing Slocum’s black citizens. Those who were not killed fled for their lives, never to return. When the killing was over 23 black citizens (and possibly many more) were dead. No one was ever prosecuted for the killings.

Bills has done what historians are required to do, to tell a story, and if necessary to re-tell the story of events that should shock our collective conscience, even years after the events have transpired. By re-telling the “Slocum Massacre” Bills allows us to revisit the events of the 29th of July, 1910 in search of answers to such an atrocity.

From the time I was a teenager I heard rumours that some of my relatives were killed in the Slocum massacre. One aunt who is now 92 told me as late as 1986 that we had relatives who were killed in the massacre. What exactly happened remained a matter not to be discussed, so much so that the aunt who told me about the killings in our family spoke in a whispered voice, as if not to be overheard. 75 years later as she described how the family member was chased, how he retreated to safety inside his house under a bed, only to be shot and killed as shotgun blasts riddled his body.

It would be easy for me (even without an absolute certainty that some of the black Wilsons who were murdered were not from my family line of Wilsons) to question why Bills is reopening a long since closed chapter of yet another episode of white-on-black vigilante violence in America. Who needs to resurrect and relive such brutality all over again? Who wants to turn the pages of yet another “painful read” of naked white aggression on black Americans? As hard as these stories are to read, we must read them, not only as reminders of the “ugly” past of race relations in America, but also to look at these events through a fresh set of “why” eyes. This is how I am choosing to read the re-telling of the Slocum Massacre.

Bills is a bold writer. The book cover is graphic and provocative. He does not mince words. He has not only retold the story as a “massacre,” and not a riot, but he has characterized the killings as “an act of genocide.” Bills’ description is precisely accurate of what happened in Slocum on the 29th of July, 1910—“the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group”, this is the dictionary definition of genocide. We know the term well as descriptive of the 1994 reign of terror as the Tutsi murdered up to a million Hutus in Rwanda. We also know the term as descriptive of the 1995 “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnia. But there is a tendency to sanitise genocide on American soil. Bills has boldly gone there. Still there is the question of why? Why would white citizens arm themselves to kill an entire population of their fellow black neighbours in a small rural Texas town in 1910?

The “whys” of the 1910 Slocum killings may never be fully known. The possible range of “reasons why” include an inter-racial mercantile transaction gone awry, a trumped up rumour that blacks citizens were planning “a riot”, and the refusal of white to work for a black road supervisor. But, what we do know is that history has provided us with an array of “reasons” for “naked aggression” by whites toward African Americans that include, “acting uppity” and “disrespecting a white woman.”

I am inclined to believe that land and plain old “hate” were two powerful and compelling factors in the Slocum massacre. From the founding of this country land has been a powerful force in eliminating or removing “people obstacles.” Native Americans were targeted for death and removal from the inception of their contact with non-indigenous peoples. Andrew Jackson’s land and mineral grab orchestrated an “Indian removal” program that gave us the “Trail of Tears” as thousands of Native Americans were relocated to Oklahoma. What we know about land is that it is finite and cannot be expanded to accommodate population growth. America’s “Westward Expansion” required the removal of “people obstacles.” And so the confluence of race and land in America gave us policies that prevented certain people, African Americans especially, from being included in numerous land give-aways and homestead programs. This policy of racial exclusion likewise affected every aspect of the acquisition of land as a factor of wealth by peoples of colour, from discrimination in housing and in home and farm loan programs. What is today referred to as “gentrification” is a continuation of the displacement of peoples of colour to their economic detriment to benefit young white professionals who can repopulate and bring economic vitality to dying cities. By whatever name the result is a “land grab.”

Was the Slocum genocide motivated by a desire by white citizens to displace black citizens from arable and productive land? Did the end of the slave-plantation society in East Texas provide land benefits to former slaves that whites found too unpalatable? Did valuable Slocum land in the hands of black citizens, which translated into black wealth, stir up the oldest reason to kill—jealousy? What happened to the land and valuables of the murdered and forcibly removed black citizens after the killings ended? Did white citizens calmly go about claiming and re-titling black land and possessions as they dug mass graves for all the bodies—the real count of which will never be known? What did we learn about the so-called Tulsa, Oklahoma “riot” of 1924 that destroyed black lives and millions of dollars in black wealth at the hands of naked white aggression? What did we learn from Carolyn Meyer’s book “White Lilacs” about the fictional but real “Denton, Texas forcible removal of the black citizens in order to build a park? Bills new book gives us a reason to revisit the black-white wealth gap in America, not as a new occurrence, but as a continuation of the long standing, historical footings of degradation of black life as it relates to land and wealth

“Hate” as a reason for the Slocum massacre is too obvious for much discussion. Recently a member of the KKK shot and killed several individuals he believed to be Jewish. As he was being arrested he yelled, “Heil Hitler!” to indicate his hatred toward Jews. The term “hate crime” was immediately invoked by law enforcement and the media. In fact a “hate crime” has entered the criminal justice vocabulary to explain a wide array of crimes including attacks on the gay community. However, throughout the long history of naked white aggression by whites against blacks, including hundreds of lynchings, many of which are chronicled by Bills in his book, the term “hate crimes” has rarely been used. But, what else can explain the unbroken chain of unprovoked hostilities that have too often turned into senseless violence and bloodshed by whites toward African Americans. In his book Bills offers clear examples of such “hate crimes” that followed the boxing victories of Jack Johnson that made him heavyweight champion of the world. Even a sporting event led many whites to unleash their hate toward black citizens for daring to celebrate Johnson’s victories.

Bills’ book is indeed a “hard read.” The photos of whites celebrating beneath black burned and brutalized corpses hanging from trees is hard to stomach. Still, Bills has retold a story that should be a “must read” for anyone willing to see the truth about genocide in America.

(via catherine-die-grosse)

Sauron was become now a sorcerer of dreadful power, master of shadows and of phantoms, foul in wisdom, cruel in strength, misshaping what he touched, twisting what he ruled, lord of werewolves; his dominion was torment. 

The Silmarillion, “Of the Ruin of Beleriand and the Fall of Fingolfin”

(via thatiswhy)



Dear STFU-Moffat and associates,

From now on, I insist you describe Steven Moffat as “Emmy-award winning writer Steven Moffat.” Just to make sure you’re being fair.

Emmy-award winning writer Steven Moffat is a queerbaiting hack

(via djezhofmacedon)


(via djezhofmacedon)

Everybody who reblogs this by tomorrow (this ends August 27th) will get a short sentence in their inbox describing the mental image that I got when I saw their URL.


I’m bored and sick and I need something to do.

(via hoganddice)

You think I’m not a  g o d d e s s ?

(via stevisa)

(via catherine-die-grosse)



White peacocks fighting for dominancy

History 101

(via thatiswhy)

pfffft!   thp   

catherine-die-grosse replied to your post “catherine-die-grosse replied to your post “It appears that I…”


c’est vrai, non?

catherine-die-grosse replied to your post “It appears that I accidentally unfollowed you? I’m sorry about that, you’re one of my favorite bloggers!”

rolling my eyes @ you

Yeah, but you love me really.

catherine-die-grosse: It appears that I accidentally unfollowed you? I'm sorry about that, you're one of my favorite bloggers!

That’s a damn lie and you know it.

I’m an artist, not a blogger!