Thursday's Child

Finishing up a PhD and parenting a toddler. Because life's not crazy enough.

[ggariba]

The comic idea I’m super excited about and gonna start blocking out this weekend .It tackles a lot of stuff I’ve been thinking about lately . It’s still in it’s early stages but I’m excited to start writting and develloping these guys they already have a lot of potential (to me) .Anyway stay tuned it’s called “ NIBI” which means ‘ HERE ‘ in Yoruba. 

I’ll be making a side tumblr for it as well.Look out for it if you’re interested .

:)

[ggariba]

It’s changing and evolving as I continue developing it but I’m going to start posting some pages very soon follow: nibicomic For updates ! :)

-GG

[beatonna]

this comic is about 15 pages in now, and it’s going to be one to follow

[cultureartsociety]

Before 1965 when Ghana’s first president Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah called for the documentation of “our folktales” as a means of creating “African Classics” for posterity, Efua T. Sutherland had seven years earlier emerged as one of the literary figures to add worth to “ our folktales” Born the 27th of June in Cape Coast to a Fante family and considered by many as one of Africa’s early female writers, Efua Sutherland’s internationally acclaimed literary works and achievements include Foriwa( 1962), Edufa(1967), founding of Ghana’s Drama Studio, The Ghana society of Writers and Kodzidan; a community project for the preservation of oral literature and Pan-African culture. Much of her life was dedicated to pioneering research in Ghanian oral traditions and establishing “ Children’s Drama Development Project” which focused on the cultural life of children in society. This information was used as basis for producing and publishing conferences, projects and books for children one being “ Playtime in Africa” from 1960. Additionally she was the drama lecture and mentor of the legendary writer Ama Ata Aidoo as well . Even though her name for reasons unknown to me has been left out by works of feminist critique such as “ Contemporary African Literature and the Politics of Gender”, she is far from the occasional writer that one might assume. | Image © unknown #shero

[curiouschiroptera-blog]

Truth vs. Twilight

In collaboration with the Quileute Tribe, this site seeks to inform Twilight fans, parents, teachers, and others about the real Quileute culture, which indeed has a wolf origin story, a historic relationship with the wolf as demonstrated in songs, stories, and various art forms, as well as a modern, multi-dimensional community with a sophisticated governance system. We also hope to offer a counter narrative to The Twilight Saga’s stereotypical representations of race, class, and gender, and offer resources for a more meaningful understanding of Native American life and cultures.

[elegantmess-southernbelle]

BOOSTING!

[encoffin]

[shoggoth88]

I feel exactly the same TBH…

[carmennave]

So do your parents....

[thefifthemerald]

A quick note about race, ethnicity, and nationality.

Him: What’s his nationality?

Me: American.

Him: No, I mean, what’s his ethnicity?

Me: Chinese, specifically Han Chinese?

Him: So his ethnic background is Asian.

Me: No, that’s his race. 

Him: GAH! That’s what I meant!

Me: Then why didn’t you ask that? 

Race=Sociological Construct, (Black, White, Asian)  Ethnicity=Socio-cultural background, (also socially constructed,) (Han Chinese, Cajun, African-American, Latino) Nationality=Country of Origin, (American, French, Chinese, Korean, Mexican, Iranian, ect, ect.)  

[vyseryion]

Reblogging again because white people don’t understand the difference between ethnicity and nationality.

Guide for every time someone says “I’M NOT WHITE, I’M IRISH/ITALIAN/ETC.” 

[the-original-dtwps]

Also a guide for everyone who says “I’m not white, I’m Mexican”.

[carmennave]

Nationality is country of citizenship. It can change in a person’s lifetime.

[jazzcochina-deactivated20180807]

Reading about “third genders” just makes me upset bc colonization eradicated so many gender expressions and marginalized so many others all for the sake of “western” control and conformity. And at this point it’s not something many of us can reclaim when so much of what once existed is erased completely or diluted by poorly constructed histories that are often narrated to emulate or to coincide w/ the “two and only two” binary system.

But just imagine a world where third gender individuals, fourth and even fifth gender individuals could walk openly and confidently in society, as a part of functioning society rather than hidden in its shadows. But idk white supremacy ruins everything. 😔

[carmennave]

So, I’m not going to debate the general point on the shittiness of colonization and white supremacy: those things suck, they continue to suck, and they structure power and opportunity in the world in ongoing ways that need to be examined, questioned, and ultimately changed (overthrown, even).  But, that said, the fact that there have been--and actually continue to be--places where more than two genders are recognized and given meaning does not actually mean that gender in those places necessarily involves less conformity than in Western states/cultures. (Before I go on, I’ll just point out that I’m an anthropologist who studies gender, so you know a bit where I’m coming from.) A lot of places that recognize non-binary gender categories actually have quite explicitly defined gender roles within society. It’s not a matter of people having a sort of freedom of gender expression, but that there are roles which either cross gender categories or which are separate categories with particular roles for male, female, and whatever the third gender is. This might mean that there are limited types of employment that a third-gender identified person can take, or particular marital and/or sexual roles that are available. Not every third gender category is defined in ways that are equitable, and even where they are positive, they don’t generally involve freedom from social expectations. 

[nevver]

[nevver]

Mischief Night

[enjoyyourbunny]

Why is Michigan so weird?

[mothersmourningdress]

@queer-balladeer

[idkpotato117]

WAIT SO THIS IS ONLY SOMETHING WE SAY IN NEW JERSEY

[amorremanet]

as a Michigander, I can say that we have no idea what you guys are talking about because we’re pretty sure that it’s you lot who are weird with your “Mischief Night” blah blah blah blah

[evertea-deactivated20161109]

It’s called mat night in some of Canada… Just to be extra odd.

[carmennave]

I grew up in Ontario calling it Devil’s night. It used to be a pretty common night for mild vandalism and pumpkin smashing (if you were foolish enough to put your pumpkins out ahead of time). I don’t think anyone calls it that anymore, and there’s virtually no vandalism associated with any part of Halloween these days. People leave their pumpkins out for weeks.

[ghanalife]

Apam, Ghana WWII veteran, Joseph Quansah (92 yrs), displays his medals after sharing his life stories Yenkassa. His advise, “war is not good, don’t start one.” Support the Yenkassa Project!

[angrygirlcomics]

Here’s my life. My husband and I get up each morning at 7 o’clock and he showers while I make coffee. By the time he’s dressed I’m already sitting at my desk writing. He kisses me goodbye then leaves for the job where he makes good money, draws excellent benefits and gets many perks, such as travel, catered lunches and full reimbursement for the gym where I attend yoga midday. His career has allowed me to work only sporadically, as a consultant, in a field I enjoy. All that disclosure is crass, I know. I’m sorry. Because in this world where women will sit around discussing the various topiary shapes of their bikini waxes, the conversation about money (or privilege) is the one we never have. Why? I think it’s the Marie Antoinette syndrome: Those with privilege and luck don’t want the riffraff knowing the details. After all, if “those people” understood the differences in our lives, they might revolt. Or, God forbid, not see us as somehow more special, talented and/or deserving than them. There’s a special version of this masquerade that we writers put on. Two examples: I attended a packed reading (I’m talking 300+ people) about a year and a half ago. The author was very well-known, a magnificent nonfictionist who has, deservedly, won several big awards. He also happens to be the heir to a mammoth fortune. Mega-millions. In other words he’s a man who has never had to work one job, much less two. He has several children; I know, because they were at the reading with him, all lined up. I heard someone say they were all traveling with him, plus two nannies, on his worldwide tour. None of this takes away from his brilliance. Yet, when an audience member — young, wide-eyed, clearly not clued in — rose to ask him how he’d managed to spend 10 years writing his current masterpiece — What had he done to sustain himself and his family during that time? — he told her in a serious tone that it had been tough but he’d written a number of magazine articles to get by. I heard a titter pass through the half of the audience that knew the truth. But the author, impassive, moved on and left this woman thinking he’d supported his Manhattan life for a decade with a handful of pieces in the Nation and Salon. Example two. A reading in a different city, featuring a 30-ish woman whose debut novel had just appeared on the front page of the New York Times Book Review. I didn’t love the book (a coming-of-age story set among wealthy teenagers) but many people I respect thought it was great, so I defer. The author had herself attended one of the big, East Coast prep schools, while her parents were busy growing their careers on the New York literary scene. These were people — her parents — who traded Christmas cards with William Maxwell and had the Styrons over for dinner. She, the author, was their only beloved child. After prep school, she’d earned two creative writing degrees (Iowa plus an Ivy). Her first book was being heralded by editors and reviewers all over the country, many of whom had watched her grow up. It was a phenomenon even before it hit bookshelves. She was an immediate star. When (again) an audience member, clearly an undergrad, rose to ask this glamorous writer to what she attributed her success, the woman paused, then said that she had worked very, very hard and she’d had some good training, but she thought in looking back it was her decision never to have children that had allowed her to become a true artist. If you have kids, she explained to the group of desperate nubile writers, you have to choose between them and your writing. Keep it pure. Don’t let yourself be distracted by a baby’s cry. I was dumbfounded. I wanted to leap to my feet and shout. “Hello? Alice Munro! Doris Lessing! Joan Didion!” Of course, there are thousands of other extraordinary writers who managed to produce art despite motherhood. But the essential point was that, the quality of her book notwithstanding, this author’s chief advantage had nothing to do with her reproductive decisions. It was about connections. Straight up. She’d had them since birth. In my opinion, we do an enormous “let them eat cake” disservice to our community when we obfuscate the circumstances that help us write, publish and in some way succeed. I can’t claim the wealth of the first author (not even close); nor do I have the connections of the second. I don’t have their fame either. But I do have a huge advantage over the writer who is living paycheck to paycheck, or lonely and isolated, or dealing with a medical condition, or working a full-time job. How can I be so sure? Because I used to be poor, overworked and overwhelmed. And I produced zero books during that time. Throughout my 20s, I was married to an addict who tried valiantly (but failed, over and over) to stay straight. We had three children, one with autism, and lived in poverty for a long, wretched time. In my 30s I divorced the man because it was the only way out of constant crisis. For the next 10 years, I worked two jobs and raised my three kids alone, without child support or the involvement of their dad. I published my first novel at 39, but only after a teaching stint where I met some influential writers and three months living with my parents while I completed the first draft. After turning in that manuscript, I landed a pretty cushy magazine editor’s job. A year later, I met my second husband. For the first time I had a true partner, someone I could rely on who was there in every way for me and our kids. Life got easier. I produced a nonfiction book, a second novel and about 30 essays within a relatively short time. Today, I am essentially “sponsored” by this very loving man who shows up at the end of the day, asks me how the writing went, pours me a glass of wine, then takes me out to eat. He accompanies me when I travel 500 miles to do a 75-minute reading, manages my finances, and never complains that my dark, heady little books have resulted in low advances and rather modest sales. I completed my third novel in eight months flat. I started the book while on a lovely vacation. Then I wrote happily and relatively quickly because I had the time and the funding, as well as help from my husband, my agent and a very talented editor friend. Without all those advantages, I might be on page 52. OK, there’s mine. Now show me yours.

Ann Bauer, ““Sponsored” by my husband: Why it’s a problem that writers never talk about where their money comes from”, http://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/sponsored_by_my_husband_why_its_a_problem_that_writers_never_talk_about_where_their_money_comes_from/ (via angrygirlcomics)

This is so important, especially for people like me, who are always hearing the radio station that plays “but you’re 26 and you are ~*~gifted~*~ and you can write, WHERE IS YOUR NOVEL” on constant loop.

It’s so important because I see younger people who can write going “oh yes, I can write, therefore I will be an English major, and write my book and live on that yes?? then I don’t have to do other jobs yes??” and you’re like “oh, no, honey, at least try to add another string to your bow, please believe that it will not happen quite like that” 

It’s so important not to be overly impressed by Walden because Thoreau’s mother continued to cook him food and wash his laundry while he was doing his self-sufficient wilderness-experiment “sit in a cabin and write” thing.

It’s so important because when you’re impressed by Lord of the Rings, remember that Tolkien had servants, a wife, university scouts and various underlings to do his admin, cook his meals, chase after him, and generally set up his life so that the only thing he had to do was wander around being vague and clever. In fact, the man could barely stand to show up at his own day job.

It’s important when you look at published fiction to remember that it is a non-random sample, and that it’s usually produced by the leisure class, so that most of what you study and consume is essentially wolves in captivity - not wolves in the wild - and does not reflect the experiences of all wolves.

Yeah. Important. Like that.

(via elodieunderglass)

[just-shower-thoughts]

There’s no way that EVERYBODY was Kung Fu fighting.

[bailesu]

As a survivor of the 70s, i must inform you that, in fact, at Peak Kung-fu, literally everyone on Earth was Kung Fu fighting, even babies, who came out of the womb able to assume crane stance and kicking doctors through walls if the doctor tried to slap them. 

The Reign of the Demon Emperor Nixon exerted karmic influence through time, ensuring the rise of martial artists able to take him on and destroy him.  The Greatest Generation’s name is really a description of their kung fu skills. The Baby Boomers came out of the womb able to make things explode with their chi.  Generation X is so known because our real name was destroyed in the final battles against Demon Emperor Nixon; the reason we are half the size of the other generations is because Demon Emperor Nixon tried to kill off all those born after 1965, as one of us was prophesied to slay him. 

Entire countries were destroyed at the height of the fighting; Lemuria cracked in half and sank.  Ninety-five percent of the Netherlands was destroyed in an infamous battle between Stone Cold Jane Austen and Charles Dikkens (the famous Dutch author) which flooded most of it; what we call the Netherlands now was only a tiny chunk of the original.  National boundaries changed, cities burned, and we lost the second moon; no one remembers it now.

At its height, punches were destroying entire cities, kicks destroying entire concepts.  The US used to have 75 states and 25 of them are gone.

No one knows for sure who threw the final punch, only that the Beatles stumbled out of the flaming wreckage of the Demon Palace covered in purple blood and then in the morning, everything had changed; kung fu itself had lost its power and the world faded, becoming mundane.

But maybe that’s for the best.  The world was nearly destroyed by Kung Fu; humanity could not handle its power.  Even now, I can only remember the truth when that song plays and reminds me of a time of glory and wrath which can never come again.

[clvrmnky-deactivated20151109]

WE WERE TOLD TO NEVER SPEAK OF THIS TIME AGAIN.

[firstpersonpbs]

Claudia Astorino, on Episode 18: Growing Up Intersex [x]

[everyoneisgay]

Happy Intersex Awareness Day!!

[thetrevorproject]

We love this video by @everyoneisgay‘s Kristin Russo featuring #Intersex activist Claudia Astorino  @intersexgrrrl. Read more from her here.

[outforhealth]

Pair this awesome video with 9 Ways Intersex Youth Want You to Support Them.

[boneyardchamp]

Your professor will not be happy with you if he says the Stanford Prison Experiment shows human nature and you say it shows the nature of white middle class college-aged boys.

Like he will not be happy at all.

[cannon-fannon]

For real though. That experiment. Scary shit.

[septemberpoems]

someone brought that up once and my teacher (can’t remember which one) was like

no

nonono

[hollowedskin]

This reminds me of a discussion that I read once which said Lord of the Flies would have turned out a hell of a lot differently if it was a private school of young girls (who are expected to be responsible and selfless instead), or a public school where the children weren’t all from an inherently entitled, emotionally stunted social class (studies have shown that people in lower socioeconomic classes show more compassion for others). Or that the same premise with children raised in a different culture than the toxic and opressive British Empire and it’s emphasis on social hierarchy and personal wealth and status. And that what we perceive as the unchangable truth deep inside humanity because of things like Lord of the Flies and the Stanford Prison Experiment, is just the base truths about what happens when you remove any accountabilty controlling one social group with an overwhelming sense of entitlement and an inability to feel compassion.

[septemberpoems]

^could never have put it better. bolded for emphasis.

[carmennave]

Hmmm. well, as a person procrastinating their tenure track application writing to read this, I can say sincerely that I would have no problem with a student making that comment. I would be quite happy that they were engaging critically with the material, and thinking about the limitations of the experiment. I might push them to consider whether “nature” were a worthwhile frame for understanding what happened in the experiment, particularly considering some of the things that former participants have said since. But with the basic observation that all were white, or that race might be something we should consider when trying to figure out why the experiment went the way it did? That would be awesome.

[medievalpoc]

Hi! I know this is a medieval blog but I was wondering if there are any blogs/sources you suggest for finding modern European history (1800ish- present). I have a professor that constantly uses the "there just isn't any POC history during this time" we're suppose to write an essay about a European woman in modern history and the choices are all white women. I know she's wrong, I just need some help. I looked through your 1800s tags &FAQ & so if youve answered this already I'm sorry i missed it!

(in relation to the ask I just sent, I don’t just assume you’re gonna do my research for me. I’ve been doing my own but I’m just kinda stuck and I also really value your opinion because this blog is so damn cool and honestly life changing. I genuinely think it is one of the most important sources available to anyone, particularly students. I was just curious if you have a favorite modern Euro WOC that is researched enough to write a 10p biography paper on is basically what my ask is getting at)

First of all, I’m happy to help! And thanks for the compliments. 1800-present isn’t really my wheelhouse, but here are a few suggestions:

Edmonia Lewis (1844-1907) was born in New York, but in 1865 she moved to Rome, where she spent most of her career. She gained international renown as a sculptor, so much so that in 1877 Ulysses S. Grant commissioned her to sculpt a bust of him.

Lady Sarah Forbes Bonetta Davies (1843-1880) was Queen Victoria’s Goddaughter

Suffragette Sophia Duleep Singh (1876-1948) 

Sophia also belonged to the Women’s Tax Resistance League, whose slogan was ‘No Vote, No Tax’. Her refusal to pay taxes led to her prosecution several times, and some of her valuable possessions, such as a diamond ring, pearl necklace and gold bangle were impounded. In addition to her Suffragette activity, during World War I she organised collections for Indian soldiers fighting on the Western Front. She also donated money towards the Lascar Club in the East End of London.

Here’s some more about Asian British Suffragettes

There’s William Brown and the other WoC sailors of the British Navy, c.1800-1900:

The most impressive naval career of all the female sailors is that of William Brown, a black woman who spent at least twelve years on British warships, much of this time in the extremely demanding role of captain of the foretop. A good description of her appeared in London’s Annual Register in September 1815: “She is a smart, well-formed figure, about five feet four inches in height, possessed of considerable strength and great activity; her features are rather handsome for a black, and she appears to be about twenty-six years of age.” The article also noted that “in her manner she exhibits all the traits of a British tar and takes her grog with her late messmates with the greatest gaiety.”

Here’s a little more about William Brown.

^ This is Miss LaLa, a circus performer who was painted by Edgar Degas in 1879. There’s a lot written about her, and it might be an interesting perspective to do research around.

Mary Jane Seacole (1805 -1881) was a Jamaican-born woman of Scottish and Creole descent who set up a “British Hotel” behind the lines during the Crimean War, which she described as “a mess-table and comfortable quarters for sick and convalescent officers. She was posthumously awarded the Jamaican Order of Merit in 1991. In 2004 she was voted the greatest black Briton.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/seacole_mary.shtml

The Smith Sisters (Annette pictured above) 1860-1960: Elizabeth, Hannah, Emma, Adelaide and Annette (Nettie) Smith.  They were the daughters of  the half English and half Fante civil servant William Smith Jnr. Their mother was heiress Anne Spilsbury Smith who hailed from a wealthy Freetown family (Sierra Leone).

Amongst their  friends were Queen Victoria’s African Goddaughter  Victoria Davies and her family friend Samuel Coleridge Taylor. Together with the Smith Sisters they were frequent visitors to theatres and concerts in Edwardian London, where the Smith sisters returned. The music for some of those concerts was composed by Samuel Coleridge Taylor himself.

I have been approached by members of my own community who have said they want our own period drama on the Smith sisters and, yes, one of them did live in a stately home as she was taken under the wings of a German aristocrat’s wife.

Fanny Eaton, a Victorian artist’s model and muse of the Pre-Rapaelites. When I first posted about her, less was known about her life, but I updated the post with some more recent research.

There’s Savitri Devi Chowdhary:

Having worked as a high school teacher in her native Punjab, Savitri Chowdhary arrived in Britain in 1932 after a four- or five-year separation from her husband, Dr Dharm Sheel Chowdhary, who had come to Britain for postgraduate medical studies and recently begun work at a practice in the small Essex town of Laindon. On arrival, she found her husband had, to a large extent, adapted to English life and encouraged her to do the same. Shedding her saris for dresses and cutting her hair short, Chowdhary sought to fulfil the role of a doctor’s wife in an English town and to immerse herself in community life.

However, she also remained in touch with her Indian self, wearing saris for evening engagements, cooking curry at home, and socializing with the middle-class Indian community in London. Not only did she and her husband help establish early British Hindu organizations such as the Hindu Association of Europe and the Hindu Centre, but Savitry Chowdhary, on the encouragement of an English friend, Miss Cresswell, also became involved with the India League, attending – and occasionally speaking at – political meetings in London.

In the early 1950s Savitri Chowdhary published one of the earliest Indian cookery books with Andre Deutsch, subsequently giving talks on Indian cooking and even making television appearances to demonstrate her skills.

Cornelia Sorabji was the first woman to study law at Oxford University in 1889.

She fought a long battle to sit the law exam alongside her male colleagues, a first victory for opening up the profession to women and equality in higher education. Sorabji was prevented from practicing as a lawyer until the ban on women in the legal profession was lifted in 1919. She returned to India in 1894 to work as a legal adviser. She retired in Britain in the 1930s, working as a writer and broadcaster. She was critical of the Indian independence movement. She died in her home in Finsbury Park in 1954.

JOSEPHINE BAKER!!!!! A lot of people know she was an entertainer, but did you also know she was a frigging French war hero?

Prior to the surrender of France to the Germans in 1940, Baker was made an “honorary correspondent” by a French official. Baker gathered information on German troops from various embassy and ministry personnel at parties. Baker passed the intel on to the French government. Her femme fatale persona allowed her access to confidential military information.Baker housed French Resistance friends at her Southern France castle and procured travel visas. She traveled throughout neutral Europe and South America collecting information about German troop movement, airfields and harbors. As a spy, once again she obtained some of the information by her “beguiling smile” and sensuous charm. The intelligence would then be written on invisible ink on Josephine’s sheet music. On some occasions the info would be pinned on her underwear. An entertainer of Baker’s cache would not be subject to a strip search.Baker’s other WWII activities included a stint as a sub-lieutenant for the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force. She also provided performances for French troops free of charge, boosting their morale. For her brave and commendable efforts Baker was the first American-born woman to be awarded the Croix de Guerre and the Rosette de la Résistance and to be made a Chevalier of the French Legion of Honor.

Adelaide Hall became Britain’s highest-paid female entertainer in 1941. Her career spanned more than 70 years, and she entered the Guinness Book of World Records in 2003 as the world’s most enduring recording artist having released material over eight consecutive decades.

I hope this is okay for starters, but if anyone has someone they’d like to add here, definitely reblog and add your favorites to this list!

[P.S. A few of the links got messed up while I was making this, but I think I managed to fix them. please let me know if any are still incorrect…]

[accradotalt]

S/O @obaaboni

[ginkgocrown-old-blog]

I showed this post to my boyfriend and he tried to take his shirt off like a girl and 

uh

yeah

[castielsteenwolf]

Out of the 82k notes my post got this is by far the best comment holy shit thank u for being u

[wingscanspeak]

So i tried it both ways and uh

i mean how do you do the first one without pulling out all your hair?

[zorobro]

this made me laugh really hard….

and it made me realize that girls and boys pull their shirt off differently. /amazed

but seriously I think girls just do the cross arm thing because of HAIR like demonstrated 

[wingscanspeak]

So one year, one URL change, and a hair cut later, I decide to try again… FOR SCIENCE! 

Its not science unless you write it down so 

[30secondstocalifornia]

First method:

Well done, i guess…

Second:

I fucked up

Girls… how?

[ohshititsmama-deactivated201812]

I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN HAVE SUCH DIFFERENT WAYS OF TAKING OFF SHIRTS AND SO MUCH DIFFICULTY DOING IT THE OTHER WAY

[iprayforangels-deactivated20220]

I FIGURED IT OUT!!!!!

It’s all in the way that girl/boys shirts are made.

Girls shirts have less armpit room then boy’s do and are generally shorter so pulling it off over your head is more practical because by lifting your arms all the way up you make enough room for the sleeves to just slip off.

Boys shirts have more room and are generally longer so it is easy to slip them off over your head.

but if you take a girls shirt off like a boys shirt you will get your arms caught because there isn’t much armpit space.

and if you take a boys shirt off like a girls shit you will still have your head in it when you’ve lifted your arms all the way up because of the shirt’s length.

It has nothing to do with us. It is entirely to do with how our shirts are made. I figured it out for you. YOU’RE WELCOME!

[prince-cake]

bless you

[wingscanspeak]

look what is back on my dash. Jesus.

[panicatthegym]

This came back but with ACTUAL SCIENCE you are the saviour of our generation

[rightplace-wrongtime]

I have no words

[zazzcrafting-deactivated2017061]

I seriously just needed this

[girlinabearsuit]

This is amazing.

[anthropologyofeverything]

That’s some anthropology of movement, clothing manufacture, and gendered habitus right there!

10/10 would reblog again.

[hotdamn5sos]

[nizzlekicks]

When you broke but you woke

[thresholdofzero-deactivated2018]

Wait… Guys what?

Is this what you guys think it means when GMO comes up in conversation?

Do you know what else is a GMO?

Dogs. Literally ALL dogs have had their genetics modified to make them more docile, loyal, trusting, energetic, obedient ect.

Ears of corn used to be the size of your thumb. Through selective ‘breeding’ we chose the strains of corn that were the biggest, fastest growing, most resilient ect. Ect.

THAT is a GMO. I don’t know where the idea that genetic modification meant they’re injecting your food stuffs with chemicals to change its DNA. That’s not how it works.

However, they ARE spraying your veggies with pesticides and that is something you should be worried about.

Companies like Monsanto are evil. But not because they are breeding crops to feed more people. But because they’re monopolizing the farming market, sueing farmers who share a geographic area and have some of the same strains of crops in their fields because of unavoidable cross pollination and lying about their business practices.

[pyronoid-d-deactivated20181217]

This is Normal Borlaug. In 1942 he received his Ph. D in plant pathology and genetics. In Mexico, he developed semi-dwarf, high-yield, disease resistant varieties of wheat. A genetically modified food. He introduced these to Mexico, Pakistan and India, resulting in double the wheat yields in a 5 year span. In 1970, Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, for saving one billion lives from starvation, and contributing to world peace through increasing the world food supply.

Genetically modified food is great.

[fuckyeah-nerdery]

This, a thousand fucking times this. Privilege is spouting and spreading pseudo-science bullshit you saw on your Facebook feed or on Twitter because unlike people in drought and famine prone areas of the world, you have the option to do just that. Those other parts of the world that don’t have the benefit of a food surplus and can’t pick and choose what they eat depend on GMOs to not die of starvation or watch their children waste away. I despise Monsanto as much as the next person and if they ever go out of business, I’ll be the first to dance a jig, but condemning GMOs just because one megacorp is a pile of shitbags is beyond idiotic. If scientists can create new strains of seeds that can withstand disease, pests, all while yielding more foodstuff, then we should be throwing our support behind them.

[ischemgeek]

Also, “They are feeding us chemicals!” is a fundamentally ridiculous statement. 

Why? 

As a chemist, I’m gonna let you in on a little secret: 

Everything is chemicals.

[intj-confessions]

Scientists have added extra nutrients to calorie-rich, but nutrient-poor foods that can be grown in countries with limited agriculture. And yet oftentimes they are blocked from getting these GMOs to the countries that desperately need them because of ignorant arguments like this. So yes, pat yourself on the back for stopping a technology that can help prevent starvation because you don’t know how chemicals work.

[littlelotte-xo-deactivated20160]

bless this post

[alphacaeli]

Norman Borlaug ftw

[carmennave]

The world is not this simple. Agriculture is not this simple. Politics are not this simple. 

There is not a psuedoscience conspiracy preventing the glorious future of GMO productivity that will end all hunger. Look, there’s already enough food in the world to feed everyone. Everyone, right now, could have enough to eat. So why don’t they? It’s not because some people are afraid of GMOs. It has to do with the politics (and sometimes logistics) of distribution. 

When you typify all objections to GMOs as ignorant, you may be shutting down the legitimate concerns of people who are not as able to speak in the terms of mainstream Western scientific vernacular. If you respond to people who express their concerns in ways that sound odd to you by investigating those concerns, then you might find out that not all objections originate from the privileged. 

For example, during the “Green Revolution” (which is what Borlag is associated with) the new seeds were rejected by many rural Indian farmers. These farmers were described in the literature as “backwards” and “ignorant” and education programs were undertaken to convince them that they should buy the new seeds. But it turns out that they had correctly assessed that the seeds needed a higher level of irrigation than they could provide, and that the increased costs of growing the new crop varieties outweighed the returns. If you assume the technological or scientifically designed solution is always the best and ridicule those who can’t discuss their objections using the same terminology as you, you can miss out on important information like this.

It’s not about GMOs specifically, but I encourage people to read Kregg Hetherington’s academic article called “Beans Before the Law.” (also, supplemental materials and photos) He is an anthropologist who worked in Paraguay. People would say that “soy kills.” Hetherington explores what we can learn about agricultural and political relations by assuming that the statement “soy kills” is not a misconstrued belief about cause and effect, but a form of social analysis. He argues that this was a statement about responsibility. When wealthy farmers with lots of capital arrange to confiscate the lands of poor smallholders and they evict them and burn down their houses, saying “soy kills” is not so much psuedoscience as a description of conditions of the smallholders’ lives.

Why does this matter to understanding GMOs? Well, for two reasons. One is because GMOs, as well as objections to them, are part of a much larger industrialized, global, food-production system, and trying to say that they are “good” or “bad” for various people or situations without the context of that larger system is misguided at best. Not all people in developing countries are poor or hungry, and so increasing food production in developing countries will not necessarily decrease hunger or poverty. A crop that has high yields, but is designed for large fields and high inputs is going to be easier for wealthy people to take advantage of, potentially at the cost of subsistence farmers’ land and livelihoods. GMOs enter into existing socio-political relations, climatic conditions, farming practices and so on. Their laboratory efficiency or safety for consumption are not the only issues, even if those are the terms that people sometimes use to object to them.

Second, if your general belief is that our global food system should work towards eliminating hunger, then you must find a way of listening to what hungry or otherwise marginalized people say even when they say it in terms that seem ridiculous to you. You can’t pull out “privilege” and claim that anyone objects to a GMO is privileged if you haven’t put in the work to figure out who those objections are coming from and what they mean. Just because there are people with unfounded objections to GMOs, we cannot assume that all objections to GMOs (or other agricultural technologies) are unfounded. Food production is not only tied to science: it’s tied to land rights, and trade deals, and government regulations, and more. If GMOs facilitate relations that are already unjust, the people who suffer may not be able to, or may not want to, mount objections in terms of science or cause-and-effect. They may mount moral or spiritual objections, objections of tradition or culture, or pragmatic objections about distribution and politics. If your commitment is to supporting development and ending poverty, you will fail unless you find a way to understand those objections on their own terms. 

[carmennave]

Oooh, also, that thing about corn looks like it might not be entirely true. I mean, corn has been both selectively bred and genetically modified (I would argue they’re different, but that’s neither here nor there, really), but it looks like Teosinte, which is what corn was domesticated from (the thing that the third poster above says was “the size of your thumb”) was not actually so stumpy and not-corn-like back in the day. Some scientists had the idea of growing it in a greenhouse set to “Neolithic” and it came out like corn! Which is just too cool not to share.

[hotdamn5sos]

[nizzlekicks]

When you broke but you woke

[thresholdofzero-deactivated2018]

Wait… Guys what?

Is this what you guys think it means when GMO comes up in conversation?

Do you know what else is a GMO?

Dogs. Literally ALL dogs have had their genetics modified to make them more docile, loyal, trusting, energetic, obedient ect.

Ears of corn used to be the size of your thumb. Through selective ‘breeding’ we chose the strains of corn that were the biggest, fastest growing, most resilient ect. Ect.

THAT is a GMO. I don’t know where the idea that genetic modification meant they’re injecting your food stuffs with chemicals to change its DNA. That’s not how it works.

However, they ARE spraying your veggies with pesticides and that is something you should be worried about.

Companies like Monsanto are evil. But not because they are breeding crops to feed more people. But because they’re monopolizing the farming market, sueing farmers who share a geographic area and have some of the same strains of crops in their fields because of unavoidable cross pollination and lying about their business practices.

[pyronoid-d-deactivated20181217]

This is Normal Borlaug. In 1942 he received his Ph. D in plant pathology and genetics. In Mexico, he developed semi-dwarf, high-yield, disease resistant varieties of wheat. A genetically modified food. He introduced these to Mexico, Pakistan and India, resulting in double the wheat yields in a 5 year span. In 1970, Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, for saving one billion lives from starvation, and contributing to world peace through increasing the world food supply.

Genetically modified food is great.

[fuckyeah-nerdery]

This, a thousand fucking times this. Privilege is spouting and spreading pseudo-science bullshit you saw on your Facebook feed or on Twitter because unlike people in drought and famine prone areas of the world, you have the option to do just that. Those other parts of the world that don’t have the benefit of a food surplus and can’t pick and choose what they eat depend on GMOs to not die of starvation or watch their children waste away. I despise Monsanto as much as the next person and if they ever go out of business, I’ll be the first to dance a jig, but condemning GMOs just because one megacorp is a pile of shitbags is beyond idiotic. If scientists can create new strains of seeds that can withstand disease, pests, all while yielding more foodstuff, then we should be throwing our support behind them.

[ischemgeek]

Also, “They are feeding us chemicals!” is a fundamentally ridiculous statement. 

Why? 

As a chemist, I’m gonna let you in on a little secret: 

Everything is chemicals.

[intj-confessions]

Scientists have added extra nutrients to calorie-rich, but nutrient-poor foods that can be grown in countries with limited agriculture. And yet oftentimes they are blocked from getting these GMOs to the countries that desperately need them because of ignorant arguments like this. So yes, pat yourself on the back for stopping a technology that can help prevent starvation because you don’t know how chemicals work.

[littlelotte-xo-deactivated20160]

bless this post

[alphacaeli]

Norman Borlaug ftw

[carmennave]

The world is not this simple. Agriculture is not this simple. Politics are not this simple. 

There is not a psuedoscience conspiracy preventing the glorious future of GMO productivity that will end all hunger. Look, there’s already enough food in the world to feed everyone. Everyone, right now, could have enough to eat. So why don’t they? It’s not because some people are afraid of GMOs. It has to do with the politics (and sometimes logistics) of distribution. 

When you typify all objections to GMOs as ignorant, you may be shutting down the legitimate concerns of people who are not as able to speak in the terms of mainstream Western scientific vernacular. If you respond to people who express their concerns in ways that sound odd to you by investigating those concerns, then you might find out that not all objections originate from the privileged. 

For example, during the “Green Revolution” (which is what Borlag is associated with) the new seeds were rejected by many rural Indian farmers. These farmers were described in the literature as “backwards” and “ignorant” and education programs were undertaken to convince them that they should buy the new seeds. But it turns out that they had correctly assessed that the seeds needed a higher level of irrigation than they could provide, and that the increased costs of growing the new crop varieties outweighed the returns. If you assume the technological or scientifically designed solution is always the best and ridicule those who can’t discuss their objections using the same terminology as you, you can miss out on important information like this.

It’s not about GMOs specifically, but I encourage people to read Kregg Hetherington’s academic article called “Beans Before the Law.” (also, supplemental materials and photos) He is an anthropologist who worked in Paraguay. People would say that “soy kills.” Hetherington explores what we can learn about agricultural and political relations by assuming that the statement “soy kills” is not a misconstrued belief about cause and effect, but a form of social analysis. He argues that this was a statement about responsibility. When wealthy farmers with lots of capital arrange to confiscate the lands of poor smallholders and they evict them and burn down their houses, saying “soy kills” is not so much psuedoscience as a description of conditions of the smallholders’ lives.

Why does this matter to understanding GMOs? Well, for two reasons. One is because GMOs, as well as objections to them, are part of a much larger industrialized, global, food-production system, and trying to say that they are “good” or “bad” for various people or situations without the context of that larger system is misguided at best. Not all people in developing countries are poor or hungry, and so increasing food production in developing countries will not necessarily decrease hunger or poverty. A crop that has high yields, but is designed for large fields and high inputs is going to be easier for wealthy people to take advantage of, potentially at the cost of subsistence farmers’ land and livelihoods. GMOs enter into existing socio-political relations, climatic conditions, farming practices and so on. Their laboratory efficiency or safety for consumption are not the only issues, even if those are the terms that people sometimes use to object to them.

Second, if your general belief is that our global food system should work towards eliminating hunger, then you must find a way of listening to what hungry or otherwise marginalized people say even when they say it in terms that seem ridiculous to you. You can’t pull out “privilege” and claim that anyone objects to a GMO is privileged if you haven’t put in the work to figure out who those objections are coming from and what they mean. Just because there are people with unfounded objections to GMOs, we cannot assume that all objections to GMOs (or other agricultural technologies) are unfounded. Food production is not only tied to science: it’s tied to land rights, and trade deals, and government regulations, and more. If GMOs facilitate relations that are already unjust, the people who suffer may not be able to, or may not want to, mount objections in terms of science or cause-and-effect. They may mount moral or spiritual objections, objections of tradition or culture, or pragmatic objections about distribution and politics. If your commitment is to supporting development and ending poverty, you will fail unless you find a way to understand those objections on their own terms.