#also why were there so many agricultural revolutions??

[curioushabitforarivergod]

I LOVE the historical context you add to tom riddle meta. im curious. at that time how important and wealthy would tom riddle sr likely have been? i.e. how nice was the life that Tom missed out on by growing up in the orphanage instead of with his dad?

Omg thanks so much!

We don't actually know much about the Riddles. They likely lived in Yorkshire, Lancashire, or the very west of Cornwall (200 miles from Surrey as per Goblet of Fire), but I think it's more likely they lived in the North, specifically in Yorkshire. The Riddle's name is probably locational rather than profession based, and from a village called Ryedale in the North Riding of Yorkshire. It was probably mutated over time because spelling wasn't standardised or even close to standardisation when last names were beginning to become a thing (roughly 11th century in Britain).

Okay, now the reason I went into that is because I believe the Riddles were the big guys back in the day (by which I mean late medieval period c. 1100s until the late 1500s) and were the kind of wealthy landowners who employed serfdom potentially even past the Peasant's Revolt of 1381. I know a lot of people place them as merchants who made money from trade but based on their name and location (Yorkshire is famous for its sheep) I think it's more likely they were landowners. They probably had pretty solid generational wealth, potentially even being landed gentry (a class of gentry who made their money on leasing land and known as lords of the manor), although I'm fairly certain they lost most of this later. I don't think they ever were part of the peerage (the level above gentry in the British aristocracy who hold hereditary titles) but gentry usually married into peerage and vis versa so they were likely quite connected despite never being "Lords" themselves. They got their name through their association with the village as the big whigs.

Even if the Riddles had kept up serfdom for a century or so after the Peasants Revolt (entirely plausible), serfdom was abolished by Elizabeth I in 1574. Whenever they stopped working as part of the feudal system, I don't think it had major impacts on their wealth. Like I mentioned above, they were probable landed gentry, making their money by leasing out land and still profiting off the lower classes.

With the Industrial Revolution and the Agricultural Depression of the 1870s, I think they would've lost quite a bit of money, potentially even their place as landed gentry. They would've still been quite rich, but their wealth was probably in decline and they had to look elsewhere. Maybe they never succeeded in this.

The thing is, we know next to nothing about the Riddles and the family we see through Tom Riddle's eyes is one that's lost status and connections because of the scandal of Riddle Snr. having run off with Merope without being married and (rumours have it!) having a child out of wedlock. The Riddle family probably declined economically with WWII (and to a lesser extent WWI) as well, although they never got a chance to really see the era through properly due to their… untimely deaths.

I think if Tom had been raised by the Riddles, they may not have fallen so far, providing Riddle Snr. married Merope before her death, or at least had falsified documents that he did. Tom would've still grown up in declining wealth, but more than enough money still to not have to work. Life for Tom would've been far better, what without starvation, disease, poverty and later, bombs and would've remain largely untouched by the war. The Great Depression wouldn't have it so hard, and Tom, not being surrounded by so much death, would've been fundamentally altered. I'm not sure what the Riddle's reaction to Tom being magic would've been like, but I'll leave that to any writers. All in all, Tom missed out on a far better life.

Thank you so much for the ask! It really made my day!!

#tom riddle #tom marvolo riddle #hp meta #harry potter headcannons #riddle family #land ownership is a headache #also why were there so many agricultural revolutions?? #tom riddle meta #harry potter meta #ask #anon ask

[anarchywoofwoof]

Full Article Text:

The United Kingdom is facing dire food shortages, forcing prices to skyrocket, and experts predict this is only the beginning.

What's happening?

According to a report by The Guardian, extreme weather is wreaking havoc on crops across the region. England experienced more rainfall during the past 18 months than it has over any 18-month period since record-keeping began in 1836.

Because the rain hasn't stopped, many farmers have been unable to get crops such as potatoes, carrots, and wheat into the ground. "Usually, you get rain but there will be pockets of dry weather for two or three weeks at a time to do the planting. That simply hasn't happened," farmer Tom Allen-Stevens told The Guardian.

Farmers have also planted fewer potatoes, opting for less weather-dependent and financially secure crops. At the same time, many of the potatoes that have been planted are rotting in the ground.

"There is a concern that we won't ever have the volumes [of potatoes] we had in the past in the future," British Growers Association CEO Jack Ward told The Guardian. "We are not in a good position and it is 100% not sustainable," Ward added.

Why is it important?

English farmers aren't alone — people are struggling to grow crops worldwide because of extreme weather.

Dry weather in Brazil and heavy rain in Vietnam have farmers concerned about pepper production. Severe drought in Spain and record-breaking rain and snowfall in California have made it difficult for farmers to cultivate olives for olive oil. El Niño and rising temperatures cut Peru's blueberry yield in half last year. Everyone's favorite drinks — coffee, beer, and wine — have all been impacted by extreme weather.

According to an ABC News report, the strain on the agriculture industry will likely continue to cause food prices to soar.

If these were just isolated events, farmers could more easily adapt — bad growing seasons are nothing new. The problem is that rising temperatures are directly linked to the increasing amount of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere.

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, humans have burned dirty energy sources such as coal, oil, and gas, which release a significant amount of those gases. Our climate is changing so drastically that the 10 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred in the last decade.

"As climate change worsens, the threat to our food supply chains — both at home and overseas — will grow," Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit analyst Amber Sawyer told The Guardian.

What can we do about it?

"Fortunately, we know many ways we can make the food system more resilient while reducing food emissions. The biggest opportunity in high-income nations is a reduction in meat consumption and exploration of more plants in our diets," said Dr. Paul Behrens, an associate professor of environmental change at Leiden University in the Netherlands.

If we replace a quarter of our meat consumption with vegetables, we could cut around 100 million tons of air pollution yearly. It may seem strange to suggest eating more vegetables with the decline in crop production. However, reducing the land and water used for animal agriculture and diverting those resources to growing more produce would drastically help the declining food supply.

Growing our own food is also a great way to reduce our reliance on store-bought produce, and it can save you hundreds of dollars a year at the grocery store.

#climate change #climate crisis #news #world news #united kingdom #collapse #agriculture

[useless-catalanfacts]

Hi. A question in relation to your response a few asks ago. As a leftist foreigner, I have always thought Catalonia and its independence movement have a cemented leftist core, but is that just me simply being an essentialist and simplifying the dynamics since the war? Of course, I understand that most Catalans, like most people, are just normal people living their lives and wanting health and happiness and not hard-core extremists either way. I'm half Palestinian and boy, am I tired of people painting us as inherently political when all we want to do is, you know, stay alive. But, I've always just imagined Catalonia as a stronghold for socialist and anarchist vibes. Is that off? And if it's not off, how come one Spanish narrative is that Catalans are bourgeois and capitalist has been so prominent? Like, what are they basing that on? The fact that Catalonia is a somewhat wealthy region? And how do leftists respond to that? Sorry for sensitive questions I'm just really intrigued by this. Sending all the love from one occupied people to another.

First of all, my most sincere best wishes for liberation and solidarity to you and all the Palestinian people 🇵🇸❤️

You are right, Catalonia is a stronghold of leftism. It can be seen easily in maps of election results every time there are Spanish elections, or polls, etc. Catalonia and Euskadi always stand out. This is so prominent that there's even a Twitter account called The F*ck*ing Same Map Again making fun of this, lol. And within the independence movement even more so, too. Historically, the Catalan independence movement has been very linked to communism, with presence of social democrats as well. Since around 2010, many more social democrats and liberals have joined, too. This is not to say that no other profile exists, as you pointed out you can't expect a whole country to have the same ideology, but it's overwhelmingly the case.

The reason why the Spanish left likes to stereotype Catalans as bourgeois (at the same time as, when it's more convenient to them, they also stereotype Catalan people and language as a poor rural farmers' language) comes from the fact that Catalonia (and to a lesser extent also the Basque Country) were the only places of the state of Spain that were industrialized during the Industrial Revolution and for most of the 20th century. This created a very prominent Catalan working class —for your ask, I assume you know about the CNT, the collectivizations, etc. To give an overview, in 1919 about ⅕ of ALL of Catalonia's population was affiliated to the CNT anarchist union, that is not counting people in the rural areas affiliated to unions for rural workers like Unió de Rabassaires that also sympatized with CNT in many matters but was more focused on agricultural workers. More than ⅕ of the whole country's population being a paying member of the anarchist union!— But, of course, industrialization also produced a muuuuuuuch smaller amount of bourgeoisie. While most Southern and Central Spain was still ruled by the aristocracy that owned most of the land and hired agricultural workers on a daily basis (jornaleros), in Catalonia there were bourgeois factory owners.

In the 1920s, many people came from rural areas of Spain to Barcelona and other urban areas of Catalonia (the population of Catalonia tripled with their arrival), and in the 1960s again the same (this migration tripled again Catalonia's population). In many places, the people who were arriving lived side by side with the people who were already there, usually learned Catalan and mixed with the population. But in some places around Barcelona, because there wasn't enough housing in the city for all the huge amount of people who were arriving, the regime (this was still under Franco's dictatorship) built "dormitory suburbs" where previously there was no town nor suburb. Areas that used to be fields suddenly were all built into cheap housing for the arriving Spanish workers, often with very bad conditions when it comes to public services. Thus, there were pockets of the newly-arrived population that lived in areas only created for them and only inhabited by people who had arrived at the same time as them. The result is that these workers only ever knew other Spanish immigrants, and the only Catalan people they ever met would be at their jobs when they commuted out of their dormitory suburbs into Barcelona's centre. This way, in these pockets of the population (which, of course, did not come free of Catalanophobia) the idea that everyday people spoke Spanish and the bosses and managers spoke Catalan was cemented.

(Obviously, I don't mean to say that everyone in those neighborhoods thought this, only that it was an idea that developed and spread to many people there. There were also people who did not see all the Catalan people as enemies and kept a good class analysis and allied with the Catalan working class and the Catalan people as an oppressed group. A famous example is the writer Paco Candel who lived in one of these new working class neighbourhoods and was an activist for the working class and also for Catalan language, cultural and political rights. I don't think it's been translated to English, but if anyone reading this wants to get a very good view of what the situation was like, the must-read is Paco Candel's 1964 book Els altres catalans).

The idea that "people like us" speak Spanish and bosses speak Catalan is, of course, objectively false. Since in every place capitalism needs more workers than bosses, the first proletariat of the state of Spain was Catalan, and the overwhelming majority of Catalans were and are working class. And the poorest areas of Catalonia are also the ones where Catalan is most spoken and Spanish is rarely heard (all of them in Terres de l'Ebre, a largely agricultural area). At the same time, Spanish has always remained the language of power, the only one spoken by the police, the army, the government, the public administration, etc and the one that rich people want to be heard speaking for prestige reasons. Even more so back then, when Catalan was prohibited and legally persecuted in many sectors. But despite being an overall false picture, it was the experience of these people day after day. The mix of already-present Catalanophobia with the "confirmation" of Catalan people being their enemies in the workplace created this very weird and very out-of-touch mentality of Catalan people being bourgeois in a small part of the Spanish speaking people, while for the vast majority the idea of still that speaking Catalan is for extremist antifascists and that it was a thread for the fascist state and for the very existence of Spain and thus needed to be erradicated. With time, after the dictatorship ended and the democracy period started (1978), the Spanish left was legalized (Catalan independentist parties would take a while yet, because it was said that "Catalan separatists are more dangerous than the communists", but in some time ended up legalized as well, except for some Basque parties that have been illegal until the 21st century) and a part of the Spanish left instrumentalized Catalanophobia to gain votes in some circles, so they used this rhetoric and it spread more, because it gave them a justification that used the right words to sound vaguely leftist and they don't have to question their beliefs nor prejudices.

I hope this answers your question. Thank you very much for your interest and your solidarity, it's greatly appreciated.

#ask #anonymous #catalunya #història

[yourtongzhihazel]

could you explain Mao's great leap forward? there's some shitlib that wants to disregard all of mao's achievements because of it

Sure!

The Great Leap Forward (GLF) was the first five year plan of the PRC. It was the country's nascent attempt at both agricultural and industrial reform. The latter of which was to not only build up heavy industries like steel production, but also educate and train more industrial workers (hence the "backyard furnaces" sound bite you constantly hear about; how else were you supposed to train millions of workers in a country with barely any infrastructure). The former, of course, included the infamous great famine. This is probably what your shitlib is so hung up about.

As first policy goes, it had plenty of mistakes especially when it came to agricultural reform and indeed, those in the party including Mao himself have recognized, admitted, and recorded the mistakes! For example, the 4 pests campaign was not well thought out, even if the underlying logic made sense; poor bureaucratic reporting and accounting hampered production as much as it did relief efforts. The classic shitlib take is "x people died from famines in China", where x ∈ ℕ ∧ x > 20. Claims of famine death are highly exaggerated and inflated by bourgeois propagandists. But by the GLF's conclusion, which was learning from its earlier mistakes, they learned how to do collective farming properly; they learned proper and efficient irrigation techniques; they unlearned inefficient planting methods; they built great national granaries to fend against potential famines in the future (granaries which are still in use today); they kickstarted China's bio-engineering for food security. The GLF is what allowed China to build a strong industrial and agricultural base in the first place, despite its many mistakes. There's a reason why the near yearly cycles of disastrous famines ended with the communists.

The bottom line is, the CPC learns from their mistakes. They analyze and self-crit and remember them so as to not repeat them in the future. The 1-party system and consistent long-term planning is what allows the PRC to do this. If the rocky beginnings are enough to disregard all the accomplishments of a nation which it achieved later, should the french or american revolutions be discarded because the former ended in an empire and then a return to the monarchy, and the latter had its original constitution abandoned but not before spawning several rebellions? It is an ideological and immaterial take which is emblematic of the liberal critiques of the world. Good luck with your combating liberalism.

Was Mao Really a Monster?: The Academic Response to Chang and Halliday's ''Mao: The Unknown Story'' by Gregor Benton, Lin Chun

#Hazel's press releases

[cicerenella]

Ooh please expand on the Italy bros relationship! Even in canon they have a bit of an odd relationship. Sometimes they actually act like brothers and other times they seem uncomfortable around the other.

ah, this is going to be a long one everyone.

the relationship of the two brothers is...much more complicated than what hima portrayed, so I hope I can explain myself the best I can. Let's start in order with a bit of history! (I'm not at home, so if the writing/formatting is a bit weird sorry in advance! I will get to the other asks as soon as I can use my pc)

So we all know that both Felice and Romano are Rome's grandkids and cherish him very much even after his passing. Although Rome wasn't an ideal grandfather, preferring Feli over Romano since he "inherited" his artistic tendencies. This point to understand their relationship is quite important, since it seems that Romano's inferiority complex starts from here at a very young age. He resents his little brother already, but that is only because he's still a kid and doesn't understand why he's treated differently.

Now, after the fall of Rome, Italy was divided and conquered by many nations. The two brothers, that already didn't have the best of relationships, get separated. And they don't meet or have a proper interaction up until the Unity of Italy, in the 19th century. This to make it clear, that for the most part of their lives, these two were separated and assimilated completely different customs and cultures. That is why when the Unity happened, it didn't make a "Greater Italy" rather a "Unified Italy".

And so the year 1861 comes, and the Reign of Italy comes into fruition. Nothing short of a mess. The South, still deeply rooted in agriculture and farming, is much much poorer and behind the rising North, whom, closer to other European nations by geographical position, is being affected by the industrial revolution. How do you (the government) intervene with this situation in hand? Harshly repressing any uprising coming from the people, of course.

There have been some instances where the government tried to help the South, but all the attempts can be described with a perfect adjective "Half assed". The Giolitti government (we are in the first years of the 20th century), whom tried to industrialize the South with modern infrastructure, called the southern part of Italy "nothing more than a place where to gather political consensus"

you understand where I'm coming from?

The resentment between the brothers is HIGH at this point of history. People are literally fleeing the crumbling south (and still today!) and Romano and Felice cannot for the life of them stand eachother. Felice thinks his brother is just a big burden, while Romano thinks Felice is an ungrateful bastard that walks all over him.

There's also the whole argument about the Unity of Italy and how it was more of an "occupation" from the North, but uhhh...I'm not really going to go in that place for now.

This to say, that back then they had a terrible relationship. After WW2 however, they are trying to rekindle their broken relationship, although still today there are a lot of prejudices between the north and the south.

Romano is very sour about this, and so is Felice. They are trying to move on past this, but it's hard. It's hard to not dislike eachother. They argue a lot nowadays, since they always seem on opposites sides for everything. But, deep down, I think they care for eachother, even if they don't show it.

This to say, Hima was wrong to make romano the only one that is "mean" to feli, because in actuality it is a dislike that goes both ways. Have you ever seen a Juventus-Naples football match? don't tell me these two don't get into physical fights after it.

Oh and Romano still has a massive inferiority complex in regards of his brother. Feli is the richer, modern, and successful one, while in the parliament he is the "black sheep" of his country. Its rare, but Feli sometimes comforts him for this, explaining to him that he is an important part of their country too.

Because, despite their differences, they're part of a bigger thing, Italy. They might argue A LOT but its undeniable the love they share for one another. Never forget that ♡♡

#hetalia #right in the feels with this one #they still have a lot of problems to sort out #but they still care #in their weird way #hws italy #hws romano #cice talks

[thesituation]

why is having children assumed to be smth everyone does and that it’s unnatural to not want kids. like guys .. having multiple kids and making every woman have kids is smth that only came about because of the agricultural revolution (in part because having many kids = many hands to help maintain sedentary permanent living but also because farming your own food means you can support a larger population) if anything it’s unnatural to expect everyone to want children. when we were hunter gatherers (90% of our existence), children were born every few years and not every woman gave birth. most women helped care for the child, and the entire band would act as parents and caregivers, but not every woman was expected to be a mother. that tendency is chalked up to the difficulty of carting a baby around as a nomadic band, but i tend to think that it’s also partly because humans take so long to develop outside the womb, and birth is notoriously & uniquely difficult for us, which makes motherhood into a job rather than an expected natural role. which would mean that there would be women in the group who were not mothers, and therefore there would be an evolutionary need for people who don’t want kids. it makes sense to me to think that women who don’t desire motherhood have always existed and had a role in society as much as mothers do

#.txt

[duchessofostergotlands]

Weird question for you, non-royal. How do you feel about people (and I'm assuming its mainly us American people) planting a tree/buying a plot of land to be "given"a title? I'm on Scotland travel group and a few people said locals HATE that. I can see irritation if one expects people to call them by the title but in my view, it's just charitable giving vs harmful. But I'm American and our tendency to "pay more for better" may have made me jaded.

It's a great question :) If someone buys it as a gift for a friend and they laugh to themselves and move on with their lives, I can't stop them. If they bump into a Scottish person and announce to them that they have a "Scottish title" that's an issue. There's a few things:

What you are purchasing is the right to use their trademark. So it's like if I trademarked Lady of Jessicatown I could charge people to be able to use that. That's it. 1) You're not buying a title; partly because this company has no authority to hand out titles that actually mean anything but also because even if they were giving you the right to style yourself as Laird or Lady or whatever, that's not actually a title. Laird is basically a descriptor that shows you own land. If you've ever watched a period drama and heard an English character being referred to as a squire, that's what Laird means. It's as much a title as Mr or Mrs. and 2) you also aren't actually buying the land. They can't sell the same plot of land to multiple people, but it can't be legally registered so you don't own it. I'm sure you can imagine if I waltzed over to the US and said I'm not from the US but I bought a title and some land in your country when in reality you knew that was bollocks, it would annoy you!

Being "charitable" doesn't make something good. I personally cannot point to any discernible benefit these companies have provided. I also think if you really want to support the Scottish environment, just give to charity. If you step back and think about it it's someone looking at another country and only giving money to a community project so they could get what they believe to be land and a title in exchange, in a deal brokered by someone who isn't from the country either (the two biggest companies were set up by people from England and Hong Kong). That is absurd!! So that's why I don't buy when people claim it's for charitable reasons. It's because they want what they think is a title, and the charity part makes it feel ethical. If it was about charity they'd do some basic research and find out within a few minutes these companies don't really provide much benefit and are not respected by environmental organisations or local communities. Which should be enough.

There is a very painful history around land in the Highlands, where most of these companies have land. I won't go into too much detail but from the mid 18th to the mid 19th century there was a period we refer to as the Highland Clearances. Due to a combination of factors - the agricultural revolution and the desire to wipe out Highland culture - landowners set about forcibly removing the local farming communities who'd worked on their land for generations. People had their homes burned to the ground by wealthy landowners, tens of thousands of people were forced from their communities, and lots of people died because they had no food or shelter. This is still an issue today in some ways as Scotland has a real problem with private land ownership. About half of Scottish land is owned by around 400 people. Many of them are absentee landlords - they own huge plots of land but only come up to go hunting a few times a year. They also often don't protect the farmers who rent their lands, just like they didn't in the Highland Clearances. A lot of them do real damage to the community: demolishing homes, cutting the land their tenants have for farming, poor environmental policies. And these "title" companies have to come in and buy huge swathes of land in order to be able to pretend to sell you some of that land. So because of historical and present day issues, there is an innate cultural sensitivity around land ownership in the Highlands which these souvenir plots tap into.

#ask #anon #scotland #non royal

[simpletale-officiale]

Why u have such a cool styleeeee ?!?!

errrrrr........ urm..... pixel brush, size 4.... fluffy cat loaf. do all the lines double, many circle. funny......uuuuuuuuuuuu

The Industrial Revolution, also known as the First Industrial Revolution, was a period of global transition of human economy towards more efficient and stable manufacturing processes that succeeded the Agricultural Revolution, starting from Great Britain, continental Europe, and the United States, that occurred during the period from around 1760 to about 1820–1840.[1] This transition included going from hand production methods to machines; new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes; the increasing use of water power and steam power; the development of machine tools; and the rise of the mechanized factory system. Output greatly increased, and a result was an unprecedented rise in population and in the rate of population growth. The textile industry was the first to use modern production methods,[2]: 40  and textiles became the dominant industry in terms of employment, value of output, and capital invested.

On a structural level the Industrial Revolution asked society the so-called social question, demanding new ideas for managing large groups of individuals. Visible poverty on one hand and growing population and materialistic wealth on the other caused tensions between the very rich and the poorest people within society.[3] These tensions were sometimes violently released[4] and led to philosophical ideas such as socialism, communism and anarchism.

The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain, and many of the technological and architectural innovations were of British origin.[5][6] By the mid-18th century, Britain was the world's leading commercial nation,[7] controlling a global trading empire with colonies in North America and the Caribbean. Britain had major military and political hegemony on the Indian subcontinent; particularly with the proto-industrialised Mughal Bengal, through the activities of the East India Company.[8][9][10][11] The development of trade and the rise of business were among the major causes of the Industrial Revolution.[2]: 15 

The Industrial Revolution marked a major turning point in history. Comparable only to humanity's adoption of agriculture with respect to material advancement,[12] the Industrial Revolution influenced in some way almost every aspect of daily life. In particular, average income and population began to exhibit unprecedented sustained growth. Some economists have said the most important effect of the Industrial Revolution was that the standard of living for the general population in the Western world began to increase consistently for the first time in history, although others have said that it did not begin to improve meaningfully until the late 19th and 20th centuries.[13][14][15] GDP per capita was broadly stable before the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of the modern capitalist economy,[16] while the Industrial Revolution began an era of per-capita economic growth in capitalist economies.[17] Economic historians agree that the onset of the Industrial Revolution is the most important event in human history since the domestication of animals and plants.[18]

The precise start and end of the Industrial Revolution is still debated among historians, as is the pace of economic and social changes.[19][20][21][22] Eric Hobsbawm held that the Industrial Revolution began in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s,[19] while T. S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830.[20] Rapid industrialisation first began in Britain, starting with mechanized textiles spinning in the 1780s,[23] with high rates of growth in steam power and iron production occurring after 1800. Mechanized textile production spread from Great Britain to continental Europe and the United States in the early 19th century, with important centres of textiles, iron and coal emerging in Belgium and the United States and later textiles in France.[2]

An economic recession occurred from the late 1830s to the early 1840s when the adoption of the Industrial Revolution's early innovations, such as mechanized spinning and weaving, slowed as their markets matured. Innovations developed late in the period, such as the increasing adoption of locomotives, steamboats and steamships, and hot blast iron smelting. New technologies such as the electrical telegraph, widely introduced in the 1840s and 1850s, were not powerful enough to drive high rates of growth. Rapid economic growth began to occur after 1870, springing from a new group of innovations in what has been called the Second Industrial Revolution. These innovations included new steel-making processes, mass production, assembly lines, electrical grid systems, the large-scale manufacture of machine tools, and the use of increasingly advanced machinery in steam-powered factories.[2][24][25][26]

#simpletale #simpleverse

[sreegs]

Yesterday I had a conversation with someone who asked “Why don’t they build skyscrapers in the Rocky Mountains? It would be nice to be able to live next to some remote lake in the mountains.” I was immediately reeling from the stupidity of the question, but after I said “because then it wouldn’t be an idyllic mountain lake anymore” I proceeded to explain to this dude that, believe it or not, the cities you live in were once idyllic spots in nature.

Now, we’re American, so Colonialism is a whole other God Damned Thing that would give us good reason not to even be here in the first place. But I pointed out, “You know Manhattan? Seattle? San Francisco? Those were once beautiful seaside spots, sparsely populated. That’s what happens.” He then responded by asking “Why should only a few rich people get to live there?” and I go “Buddy, NO ONE should fucking live there. Idyllic places are revered and respected for a reason.”

I don’t think this guy is unique either. There’s this drive to just drop cheap glass boxes in beautiful places. They seem to believe that cities, existing cities, have just always Been There and have always been planned the way new cities are made these days. They think that if a place in nature is far away, hard to get to, we should just make it easy to live there. I just don’t get it. I can’t understand it.

Do they not understand that cities before the industrial revolution took hundreds or even thousands of years to take shape? That humans were still using (relatively) low-tech building methods that only permitted them to use the space at the mercy of the nature around it? Are they misinformed as to why so many modern cities create pollution and look ugly? Do they think it’s an inherent trait of cities and not the way we disregard the space entirely for the sake of profiting off the land?

Furthermore, how do you not respect the dichotomy of urban space and nature? How do imagine an idyllic mountain lake, and then a skyscraper next to it, and think “oh, this is better!”? How?

There’s obviously much more to discuss here, like the sustainability of an urban space (I’m looking at you, Los Angeles), agriculture, and communities smaller than a “city”, but holy shit. How do you revel in the majesty of the natural landscape and also think “a mall should be here”? Fuck

#cities #urban planning #nature #hell

[gsirvitor]

Then isn’t it the Hatian’s duty to oppose slavery and western intervention?

I never said they shouldn't have rebelled, but perhaps the slaughter of all the white adults and kids, and the mixed adults and kids was wrong.

And perhaps, it's also wrong to blame Haiti's mismanagement on people other than their own corrupt government, for instance, why blame mass deforestation and overfishing on a NATO conspiracy rather than Haiti's own incompetence?

Hell, it seems the only reason the Dominican Republic managed to grow from being a forgotten Spanish colony, was to reject Haitian hegemony over the island, declaring their own sovereignty in 1844.

Later the Spanish Crown recognized their independence in 1865, while Haiti chose to live as the people they overthrew did, they made the lower class their slaves while the upper class lived like slavers.

 The leader of Haiti created a system of coerced plantation agriculture, it was a military government run by the greedy, in essence, they overthrew tyranny and imposed further tyranny that led to race based genocide.

From 1824-26, while the island was under one government, they promoted the largest single free-Black immigration from the United States in which more than 6000 immigrants settled in different parts of the island.

Today remnants of these immigrants live throughout the island, but the larger number reside in Samaná, a peninsula on the Dominican side of the island, the Free American Blacks even chose the Dominican over Haitian rule.

From 1843-1915 Haiti underwent many governmental changes, most caused by revolt, however these revolts also replaced tyrants with tyrants, mostly caused by the Haitian military.

Though, for a brief period beginning in 1874, Haiti experienced democratic peace and development, this period of relative stability and prosperity ended in 1911, when revolution broke out and the country slid once again into disorder and debt.

From 1911 to 1915, there were six different presidents, each of whom was killed or forced into exile.

In this time, 200 Germans chose to migrate to Haiti and integrate, they invested in infrastructure, education and so on, it greatly helped Haiti, however their aide was given indiscriminately, many opposed factions in Haiti used the German money to fuel revolts and violence.

 In 1915, Vilbrun Guillaume Sam established a dictatorship, but in July, facing a new revolt, he massacred 167 political prisoners, all of whom were from elite Haitian families, and was lynched by a mob in Port-au-Prince.

The US at the time had taken on quite a large sum of Haitian debt, and summarily occupied Haiti from 1915-1934 to get Haiti to pay off its debt, under the supervision of the US Marines, the Haitian National Assembly elected Philippe Sudré Dartiguenave president. He signed a treaty that made Haiti a de jure US protectorate, with American officials assuming control over the Financial Advisory, Customs Receivership, the Constabulary, the Public Works Service, and the Public Health Service for a period of ten years. 

The Marines and Gendarmerie initiated an extensive road-building program to enhance their military effectiveness and open the country to US investment. Lacking any source of adequate funds, they revived an 1864 Haitian law, discovered by Butler, requiring peasants to perform labor on local roads in lieu of paying a road tax.

In 1915, Haiti had 3 miles (4.8 km) of road usable by automobile, outside the towns. By 1918, more than 470 miles (760 km) of road had been built or repaired through the corvée system, including a road linking Port-au-Prince to Cap-Haïtien.

In 1919, a new uprising began vowing to 'drive the "invaders" into the sea and free Haiti, the revolutionaries were killed and the Marines posed with their leader's corpse.

The Great Depression decimated the prices of Haiti's exports and destroyed the tremendous financial gains of the previous decade, the Haitians believed this was a return to when the elite of Haiti would rule with an iron fist, and began another revolt.

This led Herbert Hoover to appoint two commissions, including one headed by a former US governor of the Philippines William Cameron Forbes, which criticized the exclusion of Haitians from positions of authority in the government and constabulary.

In 1930, Sténio Vincent, a long-time critic of the occupation, was elected president, and the US began to withdraw its forces. The withdrawal was completed under US President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), in 1934, under his "Good Neighbor policy".

The transition government was left with a better infrastructure, public health, education, and agricultural development as well as a democratic system.

The country had fully democratic elections in 1930, won by Sténio Vincent. The Garde was a new kind of military institution in Haiti. It was a force manned overwhelmingly by black Haitians, with a United States-trained black commander, Colonel Démosthènes Pétrus Calixte.

Most of the Garde's officers, however, were mulattoes. The Garde was a national organization; it departed from the regionalism that had characterized most of Haiti's previous armies. In theory, its charge was apolitical—to maintain internal order, while supporting a popularly elected government. The Garde initially adhered to this role.

I can go on, Haiti was fucked over by Haitians more than it was ever fucked over by foreigners, so I say, the only thing you can blame whites for is Haiti's very French way of showing civil unrest.

[rw-repurposed]

Archived Broadcast #3

[RECORDED BROADCAST: 1700.110] - Chasing Wind CW: I've managed to complete a survey scan of my entire facility ground. That way I can organize and prioritize which region and creatures I should begin my repurposing program with CW: I know my facility ground well enough. I know all of the regions, sub-regions, and even the underground regions. But still, there's no harm in re-scanning them just to make sure CW: I have a total of 15 regions overall:

1. Starting with my superstructure, Chasing Wind. I'm located in the middle of the Azure Lake, or as my creators called it, the Great Lake. My superstructure is nothing special, as I'm only one of the later generation of Iterators, hence why I'm equipped with the latest technology and capabilities that older Iterators don't.

2. On top of my superstructure, lies the great metropolitan city of Megakarta. The homeplace of my creators. They've built giant skyscrapers, huge buildings, and a wide variation of sub-regions within the city, It was truly a marvel of architectural engineering only second after my can.

3. At the bottom of my superstructure, lies an old void fluid mining facility that has been abandoned for a long time. It is connected to my superstructure and it is where my resident creators were able to mine out the most precious energy source of all, the VOID FLUID. I called the mining facility the Void Source.

4. My superstructure was built in the middle of a giant lake known as the Azure Lake a.k.a the Great Lake. It is a massive deep lake centered in the middle of my facility ground. It holds most of the water that came from Mt. Everhigh and the rain as it branches off into so many rivers across the facility's ground.

5. Just south of the lake is the old metropolitan city of Urbaningrum. My creators' old homeplace before they moved to my rooftop due to constant flooding and rain. It was the center of civilization in the past age only to be abandoned and left behind for my rooftop.

6. And below the old city, lies the Sewer System. It is a maze of death with how many critters and dangerous animals living in the darkness of the sewer. It was once a clean and functioning system until the city was abandoned and now it has turned into a maze of darkness and death.

7. And further south of Urbaningrum lies the Old Mine. This old mining facility is so old it predates the Void Fluid Revolution. However, once void fluid was found as the new energy source my creators turned it into a void fluid mining facility. However, the structural integrity of the ground below was unable to hold the massive void drills and the ground collapsed causing a huge cave-in. It was shortly abandoned for the new and improved mining facility just below my superstructure.

8. On the east of the Old Mine is the Swampland. It is practically a forest that turned into a swamp due to the constant rain and flooding, and it is also where the trash and sewer water from the old city of Urbaningrum and now Megakarta flow toward the Garbage Disposal Region.

9. On the easternmost part of the facility ground is the Garbage Disposal Region. This is where most trash and sewer water be recycled or disposed of. The water acidity in this place is so high it can be lethal to touch it. And watch out for the garbage compactors and incinerators.

10. Residing north of the Swampland is the region of the Giant Forest. These giant trees were preserved by my creators until they became gigantic. Once the trees reached their limited height they were cut off and the woods were used for many things. The giant tree seed was then replanted once more. As the region was no longer functioning the trees now grew nearly as large as my superstructure.

11. To the northwest of the Giant Forest was the ever-flourishing Agriculture Complex. This was the main source of food and spices for my ancients before they abandoned it to live on my rooftop. Now it is a grassland of death due to how many carnivorous plant varieties lived there.

12. On the west of the Agriculture Complex were the high and dangerous hills and waterfalls of the Upstream. This is where the water from Mt. Everhigh was distributed to the Great Lake and other rivers that spawned from it. It is a dangerous place to be with its many cliffs and giant waterfalls that falling off of them means death.

13. Mt.Everhigh stood tall just north of the Upstream. The mountain lies beyond my retaining wall and it is so big that it even topped my superstructure in terms of height and is visible even from the Old Mine. It may not reside fully inside my facility ground, but my creators have dwelled with the mountain for as long as I remember. So I count it as a region.

14. Coming down southwest of the Upstream and into the Green Sanctuary. And as its name described, it is the sanctuary for all kinds of vegetation, plants, trees, and anything green and alive with all of their varieties living here. It is also one of the most dangerous places to be in due to so many carnivorous plants and wildlife that reside there.

15. And finally, the last region that resides within my facility ground is the Plain Outskirts. It is as its name said, a plain biome on the outskirts of the city of Urbaningrum. It's filled with grasslands, a few trees, rivers, and a variety of wildlife living there. Not much to say about it other than it is a beautiful place when it is not being flooded and raining every time.

CW: Alas, this is only the general description of each region. Describing each sub-region would be a waste of time with how many different sub-regions there is in just Megakarta Let alone the rest CW: A time I do not want to waste as my excitement for this program is through the roof. I will go through each sub-region in the future, but for now, I leave you to this CW: End of recording

===

Archived Broadcast List

#rain world #rain world downpour #rain world repurposed #chasing wind #iterator #repurposed chasing wind #rain world iterator #rw chasing wind #ask chasing wind #rain world chasing wind #grey wind #iterator rain world #rainworld iterator #iterators #iterator oc #iterator rw #archived broadcast #broadcast

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Sir John Jenkins

Published: Dec 31, 2022

What makes a successful revolution? The answer is harder than it seems. For a revolution to succeed, it needs to make things better for people than before. But most revolutions are disastrous. If revolutionaries fail, they leave a legacy of destruction and mistrust. If they win, they create new destruction and mistrust. In both cases, there is no end to oppression — which is often the war cry of the revolutionary elite. Misery simply returns in a different mask.

There is not a single example to the contrary in the history of the modern Arab state system. From Bakr Sidqi in 1936 through Rashid Ali Al-Gailani in 1941 and Husni Al-Zaim in 1949 to the Free Officers in Egypt, the destruction of the monarchy in Iraq, the bloody return of the Ba’ath in both Iraq and Syria, Libya in 1969 or Sudan a generation later, every military coup led to violent repression, sinister surveillance, economic incompetence and loss of liberty. These were not political but violently coercive systems, where politics was at best a charade.

And many people remember with regret what they lost. My older Iraqi friends look back with nostalgia to the monarchical period before 1958. Older Egyptians remember when the Wafd, Young Egypt or the Sa’adists under the monarchy actually meant something politically, in their shared struggle against British colonial control. For younger people, the Arab Spring promised to make politics meaningful again, but ended in the same way. Disappointed hopes and dashed dreams.

There are only three revolutions in the modern Middle East that succeeded in building and then sustaining a new political dispensation — and none were Arab: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s abolition of the Ottoman caliphate in 1924, Reza Shah Pahlavi’s overthrow of the Qajars in 1925 and Ayatollah Khomeini’s expulsion of Reza Shah’s son in 1979. Both Ataturk and the Pahlavis did good things, modernizing education, agriculture and the economy and increasing social freedoms. Ataturk’s Turkey survives: It was built on solid foundations. Pahlavi’s Iran does not. And now it looks as if its successor, the Islamic Republic of Iran, which Khomeini declared to be a light to the nations, the champion of the suffering masses and a beacon of righteousness, has come to the end of its own tether.

The sustained protests inside Iran, about which I have written before, show no signs of dying down. They are not confined to one class, one ethnicity, one gender or one region. They cover the country from the Kurdish northwest to the Baloch southeast. Not everyone has joined in, of course. There have been flickers in the bazaars (as we currently see) and among oil workers, but not so far the sustained strikes we saw in 1978.

People are worried, as they always are, about their families, their livelihoods, their futures. But young people in particular are angry. They are also fearless — or perhaps more accurately they have managed to overcome their fear. And they are fed up with a country that promises them nothing but isolation, the grim grind of survival, no fun and continuous surveillance in the interests of — what exactly? The promise of a savior at the end of time or the privileges of a hypocritical elite, who have enriched themselves and their children (as anyone can see through their vainglorious postings on social media) while preaching a purist virtue in which fewer and fewer Iranians actually believe?

Many of the brightest and best — maybe 3 million since 1979 — have voted with their feet and left. But most people cannot and probably do not want to. Why should they? The country, after all, belongs as much to them as to the old men of the Guidance Council or the grim-faced thugs of the Basij and the Revolutionary Guard, who threaten them with arrest, torture and death for daring to demand the right to choose.

The regime seems rattled. It has not been able to suppress the protests this time as easily as it has in the past. As I write, it has reportedly killed more than 500 of its own citizens, including 70 children and 29 women, and arrested 19,000 others, including one of Iran’s most prominent actresses. It has charged 36 people with capital crimes, already sentenced a handful to death in sham trials, executed several — after savage torture — and promised to execute many more. When Iran’s footballers in Qatar failed during their first match at the World Cup to sing the national anthem (itself a curious thing for an Islamist regime to have), it made sure they sang it during the next match. It has intimidated other sports stars and entertainers who have sought to speak out.

But this time it cannot intimidate everyone. It has tried to claim that the problem is Kurdish separatism, Daesh or the hidden hand of the US and Israel. Schoolchildren have mocked the claims. It has fired missiles into northern Iraq to try to provoke Kurdish opposition movements into a violent response that might justify its actions. It has failed — at least so far.

Leaked recordings of internal discussions, intelligence analysis and public criticism from members of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s own family, plus former President Mohammed Khatami and other senior figures, suggest the regime is now not simply puzzled but also uncertain. Recent reports that it might liberalize the law on female head coverings and withdraw the Gasht-e Ershad — the so-called morality police — from the streets seem to be misinformation, deliberate or not. Khamenei cannot afford to back down on this central pillar of the regime’s legitimacy, though he may be willing to use promises that he can later break in order to divide the opposition.

And the protesters are indeed not unified. This has been a feature of popular protests over the last decade in the wider region. Protests are often deliberately decentered to avoid leaders becoming an easy target. That makes it hard to see how the protesters can move to the next level — which is to offer a convincing alternative to the present system, however awful it might be.

This — plus the regime’s record of brutal repression and a widespread and reasonable fear of civil conflict — suggests that the overthrow of that system is still a very long way off. Iranians who want something better — and that is almost certainly a large majority — know they are not alone. Many have lost their fear. When young men in the streets are tipping the turbans off the heads of clerics, you also know that they have lost respect for their clerical rulers. And these rulers have lost what legitimacy they still had in the eyes of many Iranians.

Still, this is not 1978 — even if the 40-day cycle of funeral, mourning, funeral, mourning can seem similar. Khamenei is not leaving, as the shah left. And the regime’s praetorian security forces are larger, more indoctrinated and more vicious than anything at the shah’s disposal. They are a minority. But they are armed and brutal. They also feel that they have succeeded in expanding Iran’s power across the region at the expense of its enemies. They have accelerated their nuclear enrichment activities. They just need to keep the home front quiet. That is becoming more difficult.

The real crux will come when the Islamic Republic is forced to choose a successor to Khamenei. If that successor can promise genuine change for the better, no one will want revolution. If he can only promise more repression, something will have to give. As an Iranian friend recently remarked to me, the ship of state remains afloat but fatigue has set in.

There is little that outsiders can do to shape events. This is something Iranians themselves must do. But we need to ensure that we pay attention. Too often we watch fascinated as protests erupt and then, within weeks, we move on to other things. What happens inside Iran will dictate the future of the region more than anything else.

We need to keep sustained pressure on the regime. The nuclear file is doubtless important. But more important is stopping Iran’s ability to undermine and control its neighbors. We need constantly to highlight the regime’s crimes in international forums: Kicking Iran off the UN's Commission on the Status of Women and commissioning a UN fact-finding investigation into human rights abuses is a good start. But we need more. We should target the regime’s aggressive cyber and surveillance capabilities and respond in kind. Where we can, we should close down its overseas propaganda institutions. We should not host its apologists. We need to say explicitly that we would welcome anything that made Iran a more normal nation.

And we need to ensure we pay attention to what Iranians themselves tell us — both inside and outside the country — and not be seduced by those interest groups that pose as reformers but act as Khamenei’s stooges. This will be a game that goes into extra time. We need to make sure we are match fit.

#Sir John Jenkins #John Jenkins #iran #islamic republic of iran #iran protests #iran revolution #iranian revolution #iranian regime #islamic regime #mahsa amini #woman life freedom #religion is a mental illness

[loumands]

I think some people are being very stubborn about their hc and have a kneejerk reaction every time someone mentions race in period dramas. There are a lot of regions where the population in Europe is white. Just white. Do they even know where Auvergne is on the map of France? It's in the center of the country, slightly toward the south. It's landlocked. It's an agricultural region. And today in the 21st century, it's overwhelmingly white. I know, because I live there. I live in one of those little villages in the country, like Lestat's. I know because I have been stared at and ridiculed as a child enough times for being a dark skinned Muslim in a population that is completely white. I was and still am the only drop of melanin among their pasty faces on a range of 30km. And that's today, in the 21st century. And people are trying to tell me that yeah Nicky could have been plausibly black at the time? In this region, in the backwaters of France? And belong to a prosperous local family? That's bullshit. Of course there were poc in Europe in the past! It's obvious. But the proportion was so much smaller than it is today, and even today, France is majorly a white, catholic country. Had Lestat been from a village close to Marseille or Bordeaux or any other big port with economical ties all over the world, I would have jumped at the idea of having a non-white Nicky! In fact it would have been the perfect opportunity to explore the diversity that was found in those cities in the French Kingdom, the economical connection with the Maghreb and the transatlantic slave trade. If Nicky & Lestat were from Paris or Ile de France, again, a very cosmopolitan place, it would have been something I'd like to see. But they're from backwater France. I won't be gaslighted this part of the country isn't and hasn't been white, not with all the shit I had to endure over the years from their small minded everyone-must-be-french brains.

Nicky and Lestat's story is a perfect vehicle to explore class disparities at the end of the French Monarchy and the tensions that brought the French Revolution in the first place.

Thank you for sharing your experience, this is really important and interesting! I also come from a region in countryside with practically exclusively white people, which was very alienating as a child so i feel you

I think in iwtv's case there are several sides to the Nicki's casting that are all different questions, a) what is technically possible b) what is realistic/likely c) what people would like d) what is the best choice narratively and e) what are the writers actually going to do. I think the show is most likely going to keep Nicki as white (assuming they don't change his story so that he came from more metropolitan area different than Lestat). As you say, the population in that region was/is almost entirely white, but in history there are examples where even overwhelmingly homogenously white places has had some people of color, even if it's extremely rare. It's technically possible that Nicki would've been that one very rare person of the color in that region. I could imagine for example a backstory where his (white) father was born there, traveled to a bigger city, became an international merchant, had a child with some woman from a french colony, and chose to return home. It would maybe be very unlikely but technically possible. Some people may feel it would be unrealistic, but then again we can ask does 'realism' need to matter in a fantasy horror show, why would people of color existing in very white places somehow be more unbelievable than the existence vampires and witches and demons?

Then many people are understandably just headcanoning their favorite characters' races and there's nothing wrong with that, like i've myself headcanoning that Armand is a romani until proven otherwise lol, i know that probably won't be canon but it would make me so happy. Then the question 'should nicki's character stay white, what is the best and most compelling choice narratively speaking' i think is very complicated and doesn't have one right answer. Yesterday and today i've seen quite literally every possible opinion about this subject! When i made that poorly phrased mildly controversial post i thought it would make more sense not to change Nicki's race, but after reading people's comments who disagreed with me i get it isn't that simple and Nicki being a poc could actually be an interesting narrative choice if well-written. Like you I'm still leaning towards Nicki being white, but i can see how it would be cool if he wasn't

#once again long and incoherent. sorry #ask #iwtv

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

just some thoughts under the cut.

this is a mixed bag of a post.

it's true that the idea of a husband going to work and the wife just staying home is definitely a very very modern idea.

but the rest of the first paragraph is a bit questionable. the system before "the factory ate up humanity"? not sure what's meant by this. before the industrial revolution? before capitalism? what is the system that preceded these? you mean agrarian feudalism? where most people (like 90%, depending on the region) were farmers?

yeah most men, throughout history, did NOT "have his own business or enterprise". as i said, most men would have been peasant farmers. maybe a tiny percentage were lucky enough to be yeomen/freeholders. but yeah, men and women, for most of this period, would have both been doing lots of work around the farm. in urban areas, maybe the women would work as laundry workers, chamber maids, prostitutes, weavers, brewers, midwives, etc.

yeah if a woman was lucky enough to be married to a man who did operate his own enterprise she most definitely would have helped him with it but this wasn't a common situation. it'd be the premodern equivalent of being upper class.

in fact, this is one of the things that makes america so special because it actually broke this mold. from america's founding onward we have had a high rate of independent (family run) businesses, yeomen farmers, homesteaders, land ownership, etc. so yeah what she's describing here only would have really been relatively common in america (post-industrial revolution).

also, i don't know how true it is that people has less debt. debt has been an issue since time immemorial. but i also don't believe less debt necessarily means wealthier? in fact, in reality it seems like the opposite. many of the richest people in the world have lots of debt. most of the richest countries also have lots of debt. debt almost seems like a prerequisite for debt.

had more freedom? in what sense?

their work was meaningful? according to what metric? and compared to what? i live in a town that has a pretty strong manufacturing base and i know the factory works are very proud of and find a lot of meaning in their work.

they had more time with each other? perhaps.

"The "trads" lament that women must go to work instead of being with their families. But they have no problem with men suffering this fate. The reality, the true traditional reality, is that this "office work" is for neither man nor woman. It is an inhuman modern invention for organizing work and it serves mainly those who want to make money from interest."

i mean, yeah, obvious i support people in general, both men and women, getting more time to spend with their families. but like in "traditional" societies everyone is still working. even the kids for the most part. it's not like everyone is just chilling together all day. and even in premodern times there were still office jobs and clerical/administrative roles and bureaucracy and all that. that stuff isn't any more inhuman or modern than pretty much any other job short of hunting and gathering. like, i've seen people say agriculture is inhuman/unnatural. i personally think that's silly but you do you.

again, i'm in favor of reducing the amount of work people do and increasing time spent with family and for recreation and stuff. but this just seems no better than the idiotic prattle of other trads.

speaking as someone who has spent my life doing backbreaking manual labor and whose body is already breaking down as i approach the age of 30 i'd love having an office job. in fact in premodern times having an "office job" would have been "making it". the way everyone wants their kids to become doctors and lawyers and computer programmers, premodern folks wanted their kids to become priests and scribes and accountants and so on. there's a reason why people are leaving their "traditional economy"-based countries and rushing to becoming office workers in modern economies.

not saying office jobs are extremely fulfilling or anything. but digging ditches or pulling weeds ain't that fulfilling either. most jobs in general are just shit. lmao. if they were fun times you wouldn't have to be paid to do them.

[bookishtheaterlover7]

I understand and feel the same issues with age. I see people, and sometimes im like, I feel like I should act older. I always got alowlng with people who were usually older or younger. Sometimes, I feel like I act too young. I dont feel my age i feel like a teenager. College has this way of combining people of various ages both with ine foot in the same life and one foot out . I feel silly sometimes seeing others who have families or are now graduated with careers. But i dont want to feel run down and stuck that im not moving as fast as I should be.

I dont want to feel old I don't want to feel like the world isnt my oyster. I like how I apprached things when I was a teen with open eyes, an open heart, and an open mind. I think that's why i feel young . I dont judge prematurely, and i try and go at things openly,

I think Will and Kate set a new presence since they got married and had kids older. Its no longer a get married and have a family befire your 20s are over even at 29 people aren't focused on that, and I feel like it takes the pressure off. As women yes we have a clock, and it sucks and I want kid, I honestly do. But now isnt the time. Our parents' generation and ours have so many things that seperate us we're living a diffrent age more akin to agriculture turning into the industrial revolution than any other time.

I see celebrities who are in the same age group and it amazes me how they diffrent they look and what they done. I look at people loek SarJo and Britney Spears and I find its amazing what they have done and they look so much older. And I have to remind myself its ok youre not them you're not meant to be exactly like them.

I understand why Miley Cyrus wrote I used to be young. But I dont agree. We are still young. To a 96vyear old a 40nyear old is young

To a 50 year old a 35 year old is young

To a 19 year old and early 20s a 33 year old is someone to look up to thst we set standards to

But look at yourself in your own position. Things must have happened to you that never happened to anyone else, and those changes can be good. Dont be afriad to take longer in school to get your degree

Dont be afraid to start learning a new skill or hobby

It's never too late to try something.

I have to remidn myself that my own journy is mine and taking the shorter path isn't always fun or how its cracked up to be.

We only see hilight reels.

Look at yours no one elses.

After 18 or 21 depending does age really matter when your heart and soul are worth the most weight? Just be a good person regardles if youre 18, 21, 25, 29, 32, 35, 37, 43, 57.... I just want to be a good person and be happy and i think that means accepting how many times i go around the sun doesnt need to dictate how I feel or what I do with my life.

Okay, seriously... How did I stumble upon the accepting people of Tumblr...🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹

And also, y'all have officially made me cry 😆

And I'mma share this because honestly, it's beautiful. And I think it's a message people need to hear. I certainly needed to hear it.

Thank you, dear N🫶nnie... 🥹🤗

God, we seriously need more of this positivity around...

#An🫶n asks #An🫶n's wise words #booky reacts #booky answers #🥹🤗 #VIRTUAL HUGS #because it's a lot #and this feels like it deserves one❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

[politics-project]

Hi guys!!

So, I’ve chosen the prompt ‘Explore how online activist movements are contributing to political change in today’s world.’ And certainly the post influential two I can think of is the Black Lives Matter and the #Metoo movements, at least in my lifetime. But let’s start with some context as to why this movement occurred and was needed.

Slavery:

the practice or system of owning people

a condition of having to do very hard work without proper remuneration (payment) or appreciation

Background:

Many free and enslaved Africans were taken to aid with the establishment and survival of the colonies in America and the rest of the New world. Some historians estimate 6 - 7 million people were enslaved there during the 18th century alone. They were used for their cheap labor in mainly the agricultural industries. An industry that is not as integral to the North so they were more likely to be anti slavery although this did not mean they all viewed black people as their equals.

The treatment of enslaved in the south was inhumane, especially in regards to the sexual violence perpetrated by white masters onto black women. This links into the #metoo movement and why systemic issues of sexual and gender based violence has always been a major issue especially when it comes to the most vulnerable and marginalised women. The oppression of southern in slaved people in the south caused the abolition movement to grow further in the North. Free black people and other Northern abolitionists began to help enslaved people escape from southern plantations to the north by a loose network of save houses that lead to the Underground Railroad.

Abolition and Abolitionist:

The act of abolishing a system, practice of institution

A person who favours the abolition of a practice, or institution, especially capital punishment and slavery

This angered white slave owners who were loosing more of those who they had deprived of their freedom but they had a system of returning fugitive escaped slaves by this point…

[The 13th Amendment was passed on the 31st of January 1865, then was ratified in 1866. It outlawed slavery across the nation but it had a loophole:

“Except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall be duly convicted”

This lead to the prison labour system that heavily effects black people who are more likely to be put in prison for minor crimes compared to their white counterparts.]

Slave catchers turned police officers:

Although America had watchmen to protect the King’s peace and militas to defend them/fight their battles. It was not till the creation of slave patrols that we begin to see something similar to the the police we’re familiar with. Slave catchers as the name suggests were people who were sent out to capture fugitive enslaved people. It was not a new concept, slave patrols occurred in Cuba in 1530’s and later occurred in Barbados.

Slave owners from Barbados’s authorised the first slave patrol in America in Southern California. Virgina and North Carolina followed later on. Slave patrol’s combined the role of the militia and watchmen. But none of these were called the ‘police’, that was a French concept at the time only appearing in places like New Orleans. It was noted in 1789 that it had entered the English language with a similar meaning to its modern one: to keep peace, justice and punish disorder. The creation of the police in Britain was inspired by slave codes and patrols, which the US then copied.

American urban policing started in Boston, Massachusetts in 1838 because of the mob attacks on abolitionists in an attempt to create order. Other city’s created their own police forces from the mid 1840’s to the end of the 1850’s. The increased policing was caused by the rise in crime during the Industrial Revolution due to increased population and poor quality of life. Unlike their British counterparts they fell under local jurisdiction with limited supervision which lead to corruption. They were also armed with guns unlike the other. Outside of these big cities law enforcement was severely lacking and was left to the federal courts and the army which shows the beginning hints of how it became so militarised.

Link to Theorist:

This links into Karl Marx because their labor was exploited and enforced by the ruling class.

#school project #slavery #black lives matter #long post