1. allerasphinx:

acceber74:

fandomshatepoc:

There’s this post about how if your feminism doesn’t include destroying racism it’s white supremacy.
This is why it’s white supremacy. Like yeah Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is a man, but he’s also a man of color. Gloating about how Lucy, a film where a white woman who’s shown to be shooting men of color for not speaking English in a country where English isn’t widely spoken… isn’t intersectional feminism. Instead it’s the essence of white feminism because it’s glorifying the white hero in a non white country, when we are less than a century away from white Europe having colonized the majority of what is now referred as “third world countries” make no mistake colonialism is not dead. So basically if you see Lucy in the theater unfollow me rn.
Boycott Lucy watch Hercules.

I watched Hercules today.  It was a good film, with great supporting actors, quite a few funny moments, Ian McShane (YES) and a lot of action. The Rock proves to be a very good actor, and really sells the character of Hercules.  
I’m not surprised the imagery being used around Lucy leading Hercules in the box office.  It feeds on all the negative views of the “Far East” that Hollywood has been milking for years.  Nothing has changed really.  I will say this… we’ve already known that white women lead movies (action or otherwise) sell.  We know that by looking at all the romantic dramas, adventure shows, and YA adaptations lead by young white women that make money.  So yeah, we’ll get MORE white women lead dramas, action, romantic comedies, and sci-fi movies.  But will that mean we’ll see Black, Asian, and Latinas getting to lead movies, too, since female lead action movies are selling and have been for the last 10 years? NOPE. 
But “yay feminism”… or some shit. 

My friend mentioned (just yesterday actually) that English is pretty widely used in Taiwan, the population has a 95% literacy rate, and that English is compulsory at a certain age…so Lucy’s pretty damn ignorant on a meta-level (as if we didn’t already known that). 
Those headlines remind me of those “kill all men” memes.

    allerasphinx:

    acceber74:

    fandomshatepoc:

    There’s this post about how if your feminism doesn’t include destroying racism it’s white supremacy.

    This is why it’s white supremacy. Like yeah Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is a man, but he’s also a man of color. Gloating about how Lucy, a film where a white woman who’s shown to be shooting men of color for not speaking English in a country where English isn’t widely spoken… isn’t intersectional feminism. Instead it’s the essence of white feminism because it’s glorifying the white hero in a non white country, when we are less than a century away from white Europe having colonized the majority of what is now referred as “third world countries” make no mistake colonialism is not dead. So basically if you see Lucy in the theater unfollow me rn.

    Boycott Lucy watch Hercules.

    I watched Hercules today.  It was a good film, with great supporting actors, quite a few funny moments, Ian McShane (YES) and a lot of action. The Rock proves to be a very good actor, and really sells the character of Hercules.  

    I’m not surprised the imagery being used around Lucy leading Hercules in the box office.  It feeds on all the negative views of the “Far East” that Hollywood has been milking for years.  Nothing has changed really.  I will say this… we’ve already known that white women lead movies (action or otherwise) sell.  We know that by looking at all the romantic dramas, adventure shows, and YA adaptations lead by young white women that make money.  So yeah, we’ll get MORE white women lead dramas, action, romantic comedies, and sci-fi movies.  But will that mean we’ll see Black, Asian, and Latinas getting to lead movies, too, since female lead action movies are selling and have been for the last 10 years? NOPE. 

    But “yay feminism”… or some shit. 

    My friend mentioned (just yesterday actually) that English is pretty widely used in Taiwan, the population has a 95% literacy rate, and that English is compulsory at a certain age…so Lucy’s pretty damn ignorant on a meta-level (as if we didn’t already known that).

    Those headlines remind me of those “kill all men” memes.

  2. "It is important to recognize that when we speak of housework we are not speaking of a job like other jobs, but we are speaking of the most pervasive manipulation, and the subtlest violence that capitalism has ever perpetrated against any section of the working class. True, under capitalism every worker is manipulated and exploited and his or her relation to capital is totally mystified. […] The difference with housework lies in the fact that not only has it been imposed on women, but it has been transformed into a natural attribute of our female physique and personality, an internal need, an aspiration, supposedly coming from the depth of our female character. Housework was transformed into a natural attribute, rather than being recognized as work, because it was destined to be unwaged. Capital had to convince us that it is a natural, unavoidable, and even fulfilling activity to make us accept working without a wage. In turn, the unwaged condition of housework has been the most powerful weapon in reinforcing the common assumption that housework is not work, thus preventing women from struggling against it, except in the privatized kitchen-bedroom quarrel that all society agrees to ridicule, thereby further reducing the protagonist of a struggle. We are seen as nagging bitches, not as workers in struggle. Yet, how natural it is to be a housewife is shown by the fact that it takes at least twenty years of socialization, day-to-day training, performed by an unwaged mother, to prepare a woman for this role, to convince her that children and husband are the best that she can expect from life. Even so, it hardly succeeds. No matter how well trained we are, few women do not feel cheated when the bride’s day is over and they find themselves in front of a dirty sink. Many of us still have the illusion that we marry for love. A lot of us recognize that we marry for money and security; but it is time to make it clear that while the love or money involved is very little, the work that awaits us is enormous. This is why older women always tell us, ‘Enjoy your freedom while you can, buy whatever you want now.’ But unfortunately it is almost impossible to enjoy any freedom if, from the earliest days of your life, you are trained to be docile, subservient, dependent and, most importantly, to sacrifice yourself and even to get pleasure from it. If you don’t like it, it is your problem, your failure, your guilt, and your abnormality."

    Silvia Federici, Revolution at Point Zero (via antineutral)
  3. "

    Israeli army spokesman:

    "HAMAS WAS HIDING IN ALL THESE PLACES SO WE HAD TO BOMB THEM TO DEFEND OURSELVES":

    They hid at the El-Wafa hospital.

    They hid at the Al-Aqsa hospital.

    They hid at the beach, where children played football.

    They hid at the yard of 75-year-old Muhammad Hamad.

    They hid among the residential quarters of Shujaya.

    They hid in the neighbourhoods of Zaytoun and Toffah.

    They hid in Rafah and Khan Younis.

    They hid in the home of the Qassan family.

    They hid in the home of the poet, Othman Hussein.

    They hid in the village of Khuzaa.

    They hid in the thousands of houses damaged or destroyed.

    They hid in 84 schools and 23 medical facilities.

    They hid in a cafe, where Gazans were watching the World Cup.

    They hid in the ambulances trying to retrieve the injured.

    They hid themselves in 24 corpses, buried under rubble.

    They hid themselves in a young woman in pink household slippers, sprawled on the pavement, taken down while fleeing.

    They hid themselves in two brothers, eight and four, lying in the intensive burn care unit in Al-Shifa.

    They hid themselves in the little boy whose parts were carried away by his father in a plastic shopping bag.

    They hid themselves in the “incomparable chaos of bodies” arriving at Gaza hospitals.

    They hid themselves in an elderly woman, lying in a pool of blood on a stone floor.

    They hid themselves in a UN school where civilians were sheltering from our shells and bombs.

    They also hid themselves In designated ‘safe’ spots, we waited and then we bombed the safe spots and still after all this hiding they’ve been managing to KILL our soldiers!!!

    What are we to do, even the worlds getting harder to convince now……?

    "

    Dr Norman Finkelstein (via momo33me)

    So this is definitely from a Richard Seymour article in The Guardian that Norman Finkelstein apparently straight up plagiarized???

    (via tothebatfax)

  4. thankscomics:

    Time for some classic Deadpool with a Spidey-Deadpool team up.

    Scans from Deadpool volume 3, issue 10

  5. fyeahlilbit3point0:

This book was so real.

    fyeahlilbit3point0:

    This book was so real.

  6. "Can the hungry go on a hunger strike? Non-violence is a piece of theatre. You need an audience. What can you do when you have no audience? People have the right to resist annihilation."

  7. naazaneen:

    #prayforisrael lol

  8. heterogeneoushomosexual:

burymyart:
Indigenous Feminism Without Apologyby Andrea Smith
We often hear the mantra in indigenous communities that Native women aren’t feminists. Supposedly, feminism is not needed because Native women were treated with respect prior to colonization. Thus, any Native woman who calls herself a feminist is often condemned as being “white.”
However, when I started interviewing Native women organizers as part of a research project, I was surprised by how many community-based activists were describing themselves as “feminists without apology.” They were arguing that feminism is actually an indigenous concept that has been co-opted by white women.
The fact that Native societies were egalitarian 500 years ago is not stopping women from being hit or abused now. For instance, in my years of anti-violence organizing, I would hear, “We can’t worry about domestic violence; we must worry about survival issues first.” But since Native women are the women most likely to be killed by domestic violence, they are clearly not surviving. So when we talk about survival of our nations, who are we including?
These Native feminists are challenging not only patriarchy within Native communities, but also white supremacy and colonialism within mainstream white feminism. That is, they’re challenging why it is that white women get to define what feminism is.
DECENTERING WHITE FEMINISM
The feminist movement is generally periodized into the so-called first, second and third waves of feminism. In the United States, the first wave is characterized by the suffragette movement; the second wave is characterized by the formation of the National Organization for Women, abortion rights politics, and the fight for the Equal Rights Amendments. Suddenly, during the third wave of feminism, women of colour make an appearance to transform feminism into a multicultural movement.
This periodization situates white middle-class women as the central historical agents to which women of colour attach themselves. However, if we were to recognize the agency of indigenous women in an account of feminist history, we might begin with 1492 when Native women collectively resisted colonization. This would allow us to see that there are multiple feminist histories emerging from multiple communities of colour which intersect at points and diverge in others. This would not negate the contributions made by white feminists, but would de-center them from our historicizing and analysis.
Indigenous feminism thus centers anti-colonial practice within its organizing. This is critical today when you have mainstream feminist groups supporting, for example, the US bombing of Afghanistan with the claim that this bombing will free women from the Taliban (apparently bombing women somehow liberates them).
CHALLENGING THE STATE
Indigenous feminists are also challenging how we conceptualize indigenous sovereignty - it is not an add-on to the heteronormative and patriarchal nationstate. Rather it challenges the nationstate system itself. Charles Colson, prominent Christian Right activist and founder of Prison Fellowship, explains quite clearly the relationship between heteronormativity and the nation-state. In his view, samesex marriage leads directly to terrorism; the attack on the “natural moral order” of the heterosexual family “is like handing moral weapons of mass destruction to those who use America’s decadence to recruit more snipers and hijackers and suicide bombers.”
Similarly, the Christian Right World magazine opined that feminism contributed to the Abu Ghraib scandal by promoting women in the military. When women do not know their assigned role in the gender hierarchy, they become disoriented and abuse prisoners.
Implicit in this is analysis the understanding that heteropatriarchy is essential for the building of US empire. Patriarchy is the logic that naturalizes social hierarchy. Just as men are supposed to naturally dominate women on the basis of biology, so too should the social elites of a society naturally rule everyone else through a nation-state form of governance that is constructed through domination, violence, and control.
As Ann Burlein argues in Lift High the Cross, it may be a mistake to argue that the goal of Christian Right politics is to create a theocracy in the US. Rather, Christian Right politics work through the private family (which is coded as white, patriarchal, and middle-class) to create a “Christian America.” She notes that the investment in the private family makes it difficult for people to invest in more public forms of social connection.
For example, more investment in the suburban private family means less funding for urban areas and Native reservations. The resulting social decay is then construed to be caused by deviance from the Christian family ideal rather than political and economic forces. As former head of the Christian Coalition Ralph Reed states: “The only true solution to crime is to restore the family,” and “Family break-up causes poverty.”
Unfortunately, as Navajo feminist scholar Jennifer Denetdale points out, the Native response to a heteronormative white, Christian America has often been an equally heteronormative Native nationalism. In her critique of the Navajo tribal council’s passage of a ban on same-sex marriage, Denetdale argues that Native nations are furthering a Christian Right agenda in the name of “Indian tradition.”
This trend is equally apparent within racial justice struggles in other communities of colour. As Cathy Cohen contends, heteronormative sovereignty or racial justice struggles will effectively maintain rather than challenge colonialism and white supremacy because they are premised on a politics of secondary marginalization. The most elite class will further their aspirations on the backs of those most marginalized within the community.
Through this process of secondary marginalization, the national or racial justice struggle either implicitly or explicitly takes on a nation-state model as the end point of its struggle - a model in which the elites govern the rest through violence and domination, and exclude those who are not members of “the nation.”
NATIONAL LIBERATION
Grassroots Native women, along with Native scholars such as Taiaiake Alfred and Craig Womack, are developing other models of nationhood. These articulations counter the frequent accusations that nation-building projects necessarily lead to a narrow identity politics based on ethnic cleansing and intolerance. This requires that a clear distinction be drawn between the project of national liberation, and that of nation-state building.
Progressive activists and scholars, while prepared to make critiques of the US and Canadian governments, are often not prepared to question their legitimacy. A case in point is the strategy of many racial justice organizations in the US or Canada, who have rallied against the increase in hate crimes since 9/11 under the banner, “We’re American [or Canadian] too.”
This allegiance to “America” or “Canada” legitimizes the genocide and colonization of Native peoples upon which these nation-states are founded. By making anti-colonial struggle central to feminist politics, Native women place in question the appropriate form of governance for the world in general. In questioning the nation-state, we can begin to imagine a world that we would actually want to live in. Such a political project is particularly important for colonized peoples seeking national liberation outside the nation-state.
Whereas nation-states are governed through domination and coercion, indigenous sovereignty and nationhood is predicated on interrelatedness and responsibility.
As Sharon Venne explains, “Our spirituality and our responsibilities define our duties. We understand the concept of sovereignty as woven through a fabric that encompasses our spirituality and responsibility. This is a cyclical view of sovereignty, incorporating it into our traditional philosophy and view of our responsibilities. It differs greatly from the concept of Western sovereignty which is based upon absolute power. For us absolute power is in the Creator and the natural order of all living things; not only in human beings… Our sovereignty is related to our connections to the earth and is inherent.”
REVOLUTION
A Native feminist politics seeks to do more than simply elevate Native women’s status - it seeks to transform the world through indigenous forms of governance that can be beneficial to everyone.
At the 2005 World Liberation Theology Forum held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, indigenous peoples from Bolivia stated that they know another world is possible because they see that world whenever they do their ceremonies. Native ceremonies can be a place where the present, past and future become copresent. This is what Native Hawaiian scholar Manu Meyer calls a racial remembering of the future.
Prior to colonization, Native communities were not structured on the basis of hierarchy, oppression or patriarchy. We will not recreate these communities as they existed prior to colonization. Our understanding that a society without structures of oppression was possible in the past tells us that our current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable. If we lived differently before, we can live differently in the future.
Native feminism is not simply an insular or exclusivist “identity politics” as it is often accused of being. Rather, it is framework that understands indigenous women’s struggle as part of a global movement for liberation. As one activist stated: “You can’t win a revolution on your own. And we are about nothing short of a revolution. Anything else is simply not worth our time.”
Andrea Smith is Cherokee and a professor of Native American Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and co-founder of Incite! Women of Color Against Violence and the Boarding School Healing Project.
_____________________________
R.I.S.E.:RadicalIndigenousSurvivance &Empowermenthttps://www.facebook.com/RISEIndigenous___________________________________________.

    heterogeneoushomosexual:

    burymyart:

    Indigenous Feminism Without Apology
    by Andrea Smith

    We often hear the mantra in indigenous communities that Native women aren’t feminists. Supposedly, feminism is not needed because Native women were treated with respect prior to colonization. Thus, any Native woman who calls herself a feminist is often condemned as being “white.”

    However, when I started interviewing Native women organizers as part of a research project, I was surprised by how many community-based activists were describing themselves as “feminists without apology.” They were arguing that feminism is actually an indigenous concept that has been co-opted by white women.

    The fact that Native societies were egalitarian 500 years ago is not stopping women from being hit or abused now. For instance, in my years of anti-violence organizing, I would hear, “We can’t worry about domestic violence; we must worry about survival issues first.” But since Native women are the women most likely to be killed by domestic violence, they are clearly not surviving. So when we talk about survival of our nations, who are we including?

    These Native feminists are challenging not only patriarchy within Native communities, but also white supremacy and colonialism within mainstream white feminism. That is, they’re challenging why it is that white women get to define what feminism is.

    DECENTERING WHITE FEMINISM

    The feminist movement is generally periodized into the so-called first, second and third waves of feminism. In the United States, the first wave is characterized by the suffragette movement; the second wave is characterized by the formation of the National Organization for Women, abortion rights politics, and the fight for the Equal Rights Amendments. Suddenly, during the third wave of feminism, women of colour make an appearance to transform feminism into a multicultural movement.

    This periodization situates white middle-class women as the central historical agents to which women of colour attach themselves. However, if we were to recognize the agency of indigenous women in an account of feminist history, we might begin with 1492 when Native women collectively resisted colonization. This would allow us to see that there are multiple feminist histories emerging from multiple communities of colour which intersect at points and diverge in others. This would not negate the contributions made by white feminists, but would de-center them from our historicizing and analysis.

    Indigenous feminism thus centers anti-colonial practice within its organizing. This is critical today when you have mainstream feminist groups supporting, for example, the US bombing of Afghanistan with the claim that this bombing will free women from the Taliban (apparently bombing women somehow liberates them).

    CHALLENGING THE STATE

    Indigenous feminists are also challenging how we conceptualize indigenous sovereignty - it is not an add-on to the heteronormative and patriarchal nationstate. Rather it challenges the nationstate system itself. Charles Colson, prominent Christian Right activist and founder of Prison Fellowship, explains quite clearly the relationship between heteronormativity and the nation-state. In his view, samesex marriage leads directly to terrorism; the attack on the “natural moral order” of the heterosexual family “is like handing moral weapons of mass destruction to those who use America’s decadence to recruit more snipers and hijackers and suicide bombers.”

    Similarly, the Christian Right World magazine opined that feminism contributed to the Abu Ghraib scandal by promoting women in the military. When women do not know their assigned role in the gender hierarchy, they become disoriented and abuse prisoners.

    Implicit in this is analysis the understanding that heteropatriarchy is essential for the building of US empire. Patriarchy is the logic that naturalizes social hierarchy. Just as men are supposed to naturally dominate women on the basis of biology, so too should the social elites of a society naturally rule everyone else through a nation-state form of governance that is constructed through domination, violence, and control.

    As Ann Burlein argues in Lift High the Cross, it may be a mistake to argue that the goal of Christian Right politics is to create a theocracy in the US. Rather, Christian Right politics work through the private family (which is coded as white, patriarchal, and middle-class) to create a “Christian America.” She notes that the investment in the private family makes it difficult for people to invest in more public forms of social connection.

    For example, more investment in the suburban private family means less funding for urban areas and Native reservations. The resulting social decay is then construed to be caused by deviance from the Christian family ideal rather than political and economic forces. As former head of the Christian Coalition Ralph Reed states: “The only true solution to crime is to restore the family,” and “Family break-up causes poverty.”

    Unfortunately, as Navajo feminist scholar Jennifer Denetdale points out, the Native response to a heteronormative white, Christian America has often been an equally heteronormative Native nationalism. In her critique of the Navajo tribal council’s passage of a ban on same-sex marriage, Denetdale argues that Native nations are furthering a Christian Right agenda in the name of “Indian tradition.”

    This trend is equally apparent within racial justice struggles in other communities of colour. As Cathy Cohen contends, heteronormative sovereignty or racial justice struggles will effectively maintain rather than challenge colonialism and white supremacy because they are premised on a politics of secondary marginalization. The most elite class will further their aspirations on the backs of those most marginalized within the community.

    Through this process of secondary marginalization, the national or racial justice struggle either implicitly or explicitly takes on a nation-state model as the end point of its struggle - a model in which the elites govern the rest through violence and domination, and exclude those who are not members of “the nation.”

    NATIONAL LIBERATION

    Grassroots Native women, along with Native scholars such as Taiaiake Alfred and Craig Womack, are developing other models of nationhood. These articulations counter the frequent accusations that nation-building projects necessarily lead to a narrow identity politics based on ethnic cleansing and intolerance. This requires that a clear distinction be drawn between the project of national liberation, and that of nation-state building.

    Progressive activists and scholars, while prepared to make critiques of the US and Canadian governments, are often not prepared to question their legitimacy. A case in point is the strategy of many racial justice organizations in the US or Canada, who have rallied against the increase in hate crimes since 9/11 under the banner, “We’re American [or Canadian] too.”

    This allegiance to “America” or “Canada” legitimizes the genocide and colonization of Native peoples upon which these nation-states are founded. By making anti-colonial struggle central to feminist politics, Native women place in question the appropriate form of governance for the world in general. In questioning the nation-state, we can begin to imagine a world that we would actually want to live in. Such a political project is particularly important for colonized peoples seeking national liberation outside the nation-state.

    Whereas nation-states are governed through domination and coercion, indigenous sovereignty and nationhood is predicated on interrelatedness and responsibility.

    As Sharon Venne explains, “Our spirituality and our responsibilities define our duties. We understand the concept of sovereignty as woven through a fabric that encompasses our spirituality and responsibility. This is a cyclical view of sovereignty, incorporating it into our traditional philosophy and view of our responsibilities. It differs greatly from the concept of Western sovereignty which is based upon absolute power. For us absolute power is in the Creator and the natural order of all living things; not only in human beings… Our sovereignty is related to our connections to the earth and is inherent.”

    REVOLUTION

    A Native feminist politics seeks to do more than simply elevate Native women’s status - it seeks to transform the world through indigenous forms of governance that can be beneficial to everyone.

    At the 2005 World Liberation Theology Forum held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, indigenous peoples from Bolivia stated that they know another world is possible because they see that world whenever they do their ceremonies. Native ceremonies can be a place where the present, past and future become copresent. This is what Native Hawaiian scholar Manu Meyer calls a racial remembering of the future.

    Prior to colonization, Native communities were not structured on the basis of hierarchy, oppression or patriarchy. We will not recreate these communities as they existed prior to colonization. Our understanding that a society without structures of oppression was possible in the past tells us that our current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable. If we lived differently before, we can live differently in the future.

    Native feminism is not simply an insular or exclusivist “identity politics” as it is often accused of being. Rather, it is framework that understands indigenous women’s struggle as part of a global movement for liberation. As one activist stated: “You can’t win a revolution on your own. And we are about nothing short of a revolution. Anything else is simply not worth our time.”

    Andrea Smith is Cherokee and a professor of Native American Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and co-founder of Incite! Women of Color Against Violence and the Boarding School Healing Project.

    _____________________________

    R.I.S.E.:
    Radical
    Indigenous
    Survivance &
    Empowerment


    https://www.facebook.com/RISEIndigenous
    ___________________________________________.

  9. "They give you little bullshit amounts of money in exchange for your working – wages and so forth – and then they steal all that shit back from you in terms of the way they got this other thing set up – his whole credit gimmick society man, consumer credit, buy shit buy shit on credit, he give you a little bit of shit to cool your ass out and then steal all that shit back with shit called interest – the price of money. Motherfuckers in non-producing, non-existent industries ya know motherfuckers who deal with paper. There’s a cat who would stand up and say to you he’s “in mining”, and he sits in an office man on the hundred and ninety ninth floor in some motherfucking building on Wall Street, and he’s “in mining” and he has paper, certificates, which are embroidered and shit you know, stocks, bonds, debentures, obligations, you know, “he’s in mining”, and he’s sitting up in Wall Street and his fingernails ain’t been dirty in his motherfucking life; he went to Phillips Andover or Exeter, he went to Harvard, he went to Yale, he went to the Wharton School of Business, and “he’s in mining”?

    The motherfuckers who deal with intangibles are the motherfuckers who are rewarded in this society. The more abstract and intangible your shit is, come on stocks? What is stock? Stock certificates is evidence of ownership in something that’s real. Ownership. He owns and controls and therefore receives you know the benefit from, that’s what they call profit. He’s fucking with shit in Bolivia, he’s fucking with shit in Chile, he’s Anaconda, he’s United Fruit, he’s “in mining”, he’s in what? He ain’t never in his life produced shit. Investment bankers, stock brokers, insurance man, it’s motherfuckers who don’t do nothing. We see that this whole society man exists and rests upon workers and that this whole motherfucking society controlled by this ruling clique is parasitic, vulturistic, cannibalistic and is sucking and destroying man the lives of motherfucking workers and we have to stop it because it’s evil."

  10. yearsoflivingdangerously:

    This comic was produced in partnership by Years of Living Dangerously and Symbolia Magazine. For more amazing real life comics, get Symbolia on your iPad or via PDF. And for more information on the biggest story of our time - check out YEARS.

  11. deonte-s:

    the idea of harry potter not only straddling two worlds between him (the british wizarding world and the british muggle world) but also being met at each end by two entirely different systems of historical dehumanization/subjugation (with harry on one hand being a half-blood in a society built on blood pedigree and on the other hand being black mixed-race in a society built on white supremacy) is at once extremely tragic and extremely compelling narratively

    it’s also interesting that either status has a completely negligible effect within the opposite world (i.e. harry’s blood status means nothing in muggle britain and his race means nothing in wizarding britain)

    mixed-race harry continues to rise to the top as the most narratively compelling interpretation of the text

  12. oriental-sunrise:

 Argentina’s President Christina Kirshner Has Declared That Her Country Will Revoke The Argentinian Citizenship From Every Citizen With The Possession Of Both Argentinian And Israeli Passports. “This New Law Will Make It Impossible For Any Argentinian To Serve In The Israeli Army Which Is Assassinating Innocent People And Children” Stated Her Spokesman.

    oriental-sunrise:

     Argentina’s President Christina Kirshner Has Declared That Her Country Will Revoke The Argentinian Citizenship From Every Citizen With The Possession Of Both Argentinian And Israeli Passports. “This New Law Will Make It Impossible For Any Argentinian To Serve In The Israeli Army Which Is Assassinating Innocent People And Children” Stated Her Spokesman.

  13. emitter-of-learjets:

    harry potter is adopted by sirius

    Orphan is the New Black

  14. nonbinaryanders:

    The story of Wanda and Pietro Maximoff is one of being both Roma and Jewish. IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY HOW THEY WERE BORN. 

    Their parents being Holocaust survivors is how their parents met (escaping the camps together).

    And not only are Magda and Max/Erik Holocaust survivors, their adoptive parents Marya and Django LOST TWO CHILDREN BEFORE WANDA AND PIETRO IN THE HOLOCAUST.

    They are the children of four Holocaust survivors who grew up in Europe, raised by a Romani family who lost two children in the Holocaust. 

    Their father is likely one of the most famous Jewish, and known for being Jewish, characters ever.

    And they decided not only to make Wanda and Pietro white gentiles.

    They made them white gentiles who willingly gave themselves up to a Nazi organization to get powers.

    WHAT PART OF THAT IS OKAY?

  15. dimensionsinprobability:

    You would think that maybe Tony would be genre-savvy with the whole renegade-destruction-robot-apocalypse thing, but no