LGBTQ+ rights are slowly being advanced and, in August, the country’s health ministry declared in an official document, that being LGBTQ+ is “entirely not an illness” and “cannot be ‘cured’, nor need[s] to be ‘cured’ and cannot be converted in any way”.
Led by Cuba’s example, socialist countries are moving forward as the U.S. spirals deeper into reaction and suppression of people’s rights. - redguard
I’m just curious so let’s find out how white this website is. What racial identity do you feel fits you best? ¿Qué identidad racial crees que encaja mejor contigo?
(Estoy usando un traductor, lo siento por cualquier error).
Please reblog if you vote! Por favor comparte si votas!
If translations for other languages can be added, that would be greatly appreciated! (I’m North American so I’m mostly only familiar with English and Spanish.)
But the English settlers came legally to colonize the new land
What the fuck are you smoking?
World history facts
Are you sure it isn’t weed? Because they came over stole land from the natives.
English Spanish and Dutch settlers all came and began to colonize United States when there were native Americans here was it right? No. But they all got boats and money and supplies from there country so it was not illegal
So you’re saying you’d be totally cool with as many immigrants as want to come into the country as long as their native country paid for the planes, boats, and automobiles to get them here? Just so we’re clear.
No that doesn’t make any sense we have a government we’re a developed country a whole bunch of tribes just chilling somewhere does not. When the European settlers came here they weren’t going through any immigration process because the native Americans didn’t have one.
Ummm? The native Americans were as developed as the Europeans at that time. They certainly weren’t “just chilling” there, that’s kind of an absurd assumption and frankly, pretty racist.
Native Americans were no where near as developed as the Europeans where the hell did you get that information from. They were living there farming and building not striving towards technological advancements like Europeans were. There is nothing racist about my statement what the hell is up with tumblr and the race card
Where did I get that information from? My AP textbook, actually. The only reason Europe was the first to discover other lands was because they had a largely merchant style economy which required travel to support.
The native Americans were not as developed as the Europeans that came not by a long shot my dude you should get a refund for your textbook if it’s that inaccurate
Sure I’m going to ignore my textbook because some guy on the internet told me to, that makes perfect sense. Also where are you getting your sources, since you’re so quick to contradict mine?
You’re retarded my dude I’m sorry it’s okay I forgive you. Me in just pulling facts out of my ass of course. Yep the native Americans were as developed as the Europeans settlers. Bush did 9/11. The earth is flat and the moon landing was faked. Vaccines cause autism and there are no more real chickens. I’m on an airplane so this will be my last response for two hours.
Do you want a photo? I don’t have the book with me but I can get you evidence Monday.
Sure show me a photo on Monday. The plane is still boarding I’ve got time to waste on some more stupid tumblr debates
the fact is even if the English were more civilized then the Native Americans that doesn’t give you the fucking right to bombard their land and KILL ALL OF THEIR PEOPLE. We’re talking about the fucking 1500’s here they didn’t even have laws on the subject so no, it most fucking certainly was not “legal”
and there’s not a goddamn reason in this world you can give me that MAKES ME THINK STEALING LAND AND KILLING AN ENTIRE POPULATION IS OK BECAUSE YOU’RE “more advanced” what kind of fucked up asinine shit is that
Oh I never said it was okay. It was terrible a tragic event in our nations history. But it wasn’t illegal if there’s nothing that says it’s illegal than doing so is legal my dude.
The idea that “discovery” of this continent by Europeans gave European countries ownership of Native lands is a myth that has been very detrimental to Indian and Alaska Native nations. Countering this false idea has been part of Indian life for generations. Yet many government officials, including judges, still believe this nonsense, partly because it is repeated so often. Like all racist ideas, this one is simply not true. The Europeans did not discover this land, and they did not gain ownership of Native land by reason of discovery.
The idea that “discovering” nations gained ownership of Native lands when they arrived has never been accepted as a legal rule in United State law or in international law. It has always been the law of this country, even in colonial times, that the “discovering” country did not gain ownership of Native land but only the exclusive right to buy or acquire the land if the Native owners should be willing to part with it. Chief Justice John Marshall understood this and made it part of federal law in 1832. Indian nations held the full rights of ownership to their lands, and in many situations, these rights were recognized and guaranteed (not granted) by treaties with the United States.
In international law, discovery gave rights only to uninhabited lands and did not diminish the legal rights of Indians and Alaska Natives to lands and resources. The so-called “discovery doctrine” should not be used to justify any such diminishment today. "Discovery" of this continent, inhabited entirely by Indian and other Native nations, gave only the exclusive right to buy the land from the Native owners if they were willing to sell. This right is now called the right of pre-emption. This right governed the relationships among “discovering” nations, and had no effect on the land rights of Native nations.
The Supreme Court has accepted and reaffirmed this body of law even in modern cases.
Indian nations own millions of acres of land today, most of it lands that they have always owned and lived on. Obviously, they did not lose their lands upon discovery. As flawed and unjust as federal Indian law is, it generally protects Indian land ownership and does not regard “discovery” as taking away these lands.
It is disturbing to see statements by some Indian advocates saying that the “doctrine of discovery” actually took away or denied Indian land rights as a matter of law. If this were true as a matter of law, Indian nations would have enormous problems maintaining any form of ownership of their present lands and would seldom or never be able to make claims for the return of lands illegally taken. Fortunately, the doctrine of discovery did not, as a matter of law, actually take away any Indian land, and we should not say that it did.
The “doctrine of discovery” is undoubtedly racist and unjust. It’s main point is to claim - falsely - that Native nations lost their land rights to the “discovering” countries. But this is not true as a matter of law or as a matter of history, and we should be sure not to suggest that it is true. Despite this, we can and should continue to attack the “doctrine of discovery” as a completely false and unjust idea that has no place in our law or our country.
i wasn’t going to get into this because i love watching white ignorance play itself and i’m not posting this for this white dude who got his bleached history lessons down cold. you can continue in your ignorant bliss mayoboy, this is for everyone else.
the idea that the lands of the natives were up for grabs and thus it was legal for the settlers to just come up on it and take has been disproven time and time again but the racist idea persists. why? whiteness. whiteness is built on lies and so we shouldn’t be surprised by this.
know this, “vacuum domicilium” is the doctrine the settlers adopted and it has been ruled to be illegal. “vacuum domicilium” states that the settlers merely thought the land was vacant, they can take and call it their own. fuckouttahere. nope. those fuckers even tried to pass this fucking logic off:
Native land is wasteland or a savage wilderness that no one owns, uses, or wants and is available for the taking by colonists—therefore any aboriginal interests in the land are extinguished as soon as British subjects settle the area.
Native peoples have no concept of property, do not claim any property rights, or are incapable of owning land.
Christians have a right to take land from non-Christians because heathens lack property rights.
first of all natives always maintained both political and cultural rights to their native lands. always. they never relinquished it. not one time. second, fuck you with this “no concept of property.” the fuck you think they were able to split land amongst tribes? you can’t do that without a base concept of land, property and ownership. lastly being of another religion doesn’t give you the right to steal shit from people.
Why do these lies persist? The act colonization requires the defaming of those who are being colonized as a means of justifying the criminal acts when questioned. If you can convince the populace that natives had no concept of land ownership, then your theft was not theft after all. If you can convince the world that natives had no advance thinking or practices in any area then you can justify forcing your way in and destroying their culture. Moreover if you convince yourself and everyone else that natives were just savages then you can justify your actions of raping, plundering and murdering them and that’s the bigger goal. That’s the crime that most important to cover and recast however to do you must do those smaller acts of defamation.
i could go on but you get the gist. when your education comes via the americanized “educational system” which primarily focuses on white western malehood with much willingness to lie, twist the facts, spout half truths and worse, you’ll end up like this fucker right here.
recommended readings:
A Critical Pedagogy for Native American Education Policy
American Indian Nations: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow
In the Courts of the Conquerer: The 10 Worst Indian Law Cases Ever Decided
An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States (ReVisioning American History)
and any excuse to post this gif is always welcomed.
woke: midsommar is a horrifying movie about a manipulative cult
bespoke: midsommar is a litmus test to tell how easily you could be indoctrinated into a cult and if your first thought after watching it is that it was a girl power movie you’re very susceptible to cult tactics and you should be aware of that
you’re the only person who’s allowed to reply to this post anymore
Hey guys, I feel like Tumblr is pretty much dead, but I’m gonna hope for the best and post this here anyway.
You’ve probably seen the above video of a grocery store worker on Staten Island “attacking” Rudy Giuliani. Well, that worker was my boyfriend, and he did not do anything of the sort. I was standing right there. He literally just patted him on the back and called him a scumbag (boohoo), yet my poor boyfriend is being charged with multiple crimes by Giuliani.
We’ve made a GoFundMe that I’m going to link, for his legal fees and also for his bills and living expenses since our job has suspended him and we don’t know if they’re going to allow him back. If you could help or at least reblog, it would mean so much to us.
“Many
of my movies have strong female leads - brave, self-sufficient girls
that don’t think twice about fighting for what they believe in with all
their heart. They’ll need a friend, or a supporter, but never a saviour.
Any woman is just as capable of being a hero as any man.” -Hayao Miyazaki
I follow the “leave nothing but footprints take nothing but photos” rule of state/national parks yeah because conservation. But also because when I was 11 i read a short story about a girl who went to a museum and stole a bandage flake off a mummy on display with the mentality of “im just one person one piece won’t be missed” then at night she was visited by the mummy and it plucked a single hair from her head and then the next night a different mummy took another hair and she realized that there were only so many pieces to her before there would be nothing left and that story was forever wedged in my brain. Anyways leave cool rocks where you find them or the mummies will get you
My roommate recently came home pale-faced, like he’d seen a ghost. More like witnessed a massacre. Mass-firings were just done at his company. His job, he’d been assured, was safe. All of his coworkers weren’t so safe, and he had to get texts and phone calls from his work-friends, people he’d worked alongside for years, people he‘d gone out to have drinks with, learn they were no longer employed. To say he had survivor’s guilt would not be hyperbole.
Was this because the company had fallen on hard times? The pandemic has been rough for a lot of industries. No, actually, the company had turned a very nice profit both last year and previous, even in such a troublesome market.
The problem was, you see, the company’s stock price hadn’t risen quite as high as had been projected. They’d made money, sure. Quite a lot of money, in fact. But too many people had projected, i.e., bet the company would do better.
How did the company offset this “loss”? Easy: fire people. Quickest and easiest way to pad the numbers.
No but you don’t understand stock had fallen a percentage point! There was no other way!
We see it all the time. Hugely successful companies reporting ‘record-breaking’ profits then fire huge segments of their workforce - the very people responsible for those record-breaking profits. Why? The money “saved” on personnel costs can boost the stocks even higher!
If your company is struggling, not turning a profit, losing money, people expect layoffs. But to work hard, be successful, your company churning along strong and healthy, and you still lose your job? For what? Because half a percentage point that was dictated by speculation, guessing, by gambling that things would go up or down a certain amount on a graph of rich-people feelings?
I wonder how next year’s speculations will be affected with the information that the company laid off a lot of the people responsible for last year’s profits? Probably not much because the workers are just the components at the company; it’s the leadership that drives the ship, that makes the successes. Those leaders whose bonuses are coincidentally decided by, among other things, the stock price.
Imho the idea of ‘cruelty free’ products or food shouldn’t mean that nothing died to create it, but rather that anything and anyone involved in the creation process hasn’t been exploited or harmed.
Leather is good actually. Veganism isn’t the end all be all to morality and consumption. The issue isn’t that a chicken died for those nuggets, but that while the chicken was alive, it’s life fucking sucked. Vegan chocolate means little if the cocoa that made it was gathered by child slave labor.
Factory farms, abuses of the people who pick the fruit and vegetables we eat, the focus profit and productivity over all else - that’s the fucking issue here. It’s capitalism folks.
ALT
