This is one of best retcons ever and seeing bigoted comics bros cry over this was so funny because it’s originally what Chris Claremont himself wanted to happen in the comics
Hey, if anyone’s curious, this IS making a serious impact — this handbook was taught as standard practice for my EMT license course, as well as several other programs. A lot of new providers are being taught this as a matter of course.
Instead of Leaving This Hate Comment You Could Read This Book!
People Without History Are Dust
Queerness remains one of the most stigmatized and overlooked aspects of Holocaust history, often erased due to the lingering homophobia of survivors. People Without History Are Dust challenges this silence, weaving together compelling stories of German, Dutch, Czech, and Polish Jewish Holocaust victims and survivors - including Anne Frank, Molly Applebaum, Margot Heuman, and Gad Beck - whose experiences help illuminate the hidden history of queerness in a time of genocide.
Drawing on extensive archival research, this groundbreaking book uncovers the lives of those who were doubly marginalized, not only persecuted as Jews but also as queer individuals. In doing so, it confronts the ways in which history has excluded or minimized their experiences, urging us to question normative accounts of the Holocaust.
By shedding light on these long-overlooked stories, People Without History Are Dust deepens our understanding of identity, survival, and memory, reminding us why an inclusive and complex approach to history is essential - not just for the sake of the past, but in service to the present and the future as well.
@qelshapie I hope you don't mind me answering this question.
Imagine ID: #no but fr wtf is those tags in that screenshot
The tags in question are "#gee I wonder why Jewish victims didn't talk about being persecuted for being queer #maybe because being Jewish was the more pressing issue"
I am going to start assuming you're asking in good faith and not writing off Jews talking about the Holocaust.
Being Jewish was the more pressing issue. The Nazis were going after Jews and Roma. The reason gay people were targeted was because the Nazis believed Jews wanted to destroy the nuclear family and had created queers to destabilize families. Does that make a lick of sense? No, but nothing about Nazism does. Queer people died because of antisemitism.
Furthermore, queer people could hide. Hiding isn't a privilege, but it did allow people to survive the Holocaust without being put in a camp. There were plenty of closeted German men who never saw a death camp because they never dated a man. Hiding being Jewish, though, was a different matter.
It does not matter how observant you were. Your ethnicity, which was Jewish, was written on your birth certificate. You were listed as Jewish in census records. That's how Nazis knew who to round up. It's why the resistance blew up records offices. There were people who converted out of Judaism who were still marked because they had Jewish blood. They still lost rights. Your best bet to avoid this was to shed your identity and move to a different town but a) it's hard to leave your family behind, b) it looked suspicious if you move suddenly, and c) no one knew how bad it would get for Jews. So people didn't shed their birth identity, and they died. It doesn't matter if they were Orthodox or fully assimilated; they were murdered for having Jewish genes.
Being Jewish was seen as a genetic disease. The Nazis wiped out whole families because everyone has Jewish DNA. Meanwhile, being queer was a moral failing. If you were caught with another man, your wife and children weren't going to the camps. Just you.
I've spoken about the difference in how queer people and Jews were treated during the Holocaust here.
Ultimately, the deaths of queers was a side project. It was a fun little detour, rounding up people who might destabilize Germany, but it wasn't the goal. And to make that point, please consult this graph:
I don't know how to do an image ID for graphs. But the graph shows the Jewish death toll at 6 million, non-Jewish Polish death toll at 3 million, disabled and Romani deaths at least than a million each, and gay arrests are barely visible. There are no exact numbers given.
Please note that the other columns are deaths. That tiny orange blip? That's ARRESTS.
Being Jewish was far, far more pressing than being queer. The tags are absolutely correct.
Okay, I will admit that I am not as well-educated as I could be on the stories of individual Holocaust victims and survivors, so I can't speak about Molly Applebaum, Margot Heuman, and Gad Beck, but including Anne Frank there is a perfect demonstration of how disingenuous that original post is
Anne Frank was not persecuted for being Queer. She was persecuted - and murdered - for being Jewish
Anne Frank, by today's standards, may well be considered Queer, to the delight of everyone who thinks discussions of the Holocaust are a matter of representation, but she never got to determine that, because
Anne Frank was murdered for being Jewish
You could, if you don't think a child being murdered for being Jewish is tragic enough, argue that it's a tragedy that she never got to fully explore that part of herself, but that's about as far as you can go.
And this is in fact exactly what the tags in the screenshot seem to be talking about - Anne Frank did not talk about being persecuted for being Queer because being Jewish was the more pressing issue.
The book summary in the original post does not explicitly make the claim that Anne Frank was murdered for being Queer, but the wording (such as "the hidden history of Queerness in a time of genocide") certainly carries that suggestion, and that suggestion is an ahistorical one.
#also ''question normative accounts of the Holocaust'' is a phrase that is not *inherently* a dogwhistle -#the idea that goyische civilians didn't participate in or know about the genocide happening around them is a normative account to question#- this is *already* a post that essentially accuses jews of lying about the holocaust for their own ends#so forgive me for withholding the benefit of the doubt#holocaust universalisation#holocaust tw#antisemitism#historical revisionism
i was training a young person at work, and she referred to sexual assault as "SA" out loud, and i immediately was like, "no, it's sexual assault, call it what it is," bc idgaf if the algorithm overlords have taught y'all that you should fear direct language, how tf do any of you expect to ever address real issues with any amount of seriousness if you can't even say the words? imagine an advocate looking a sexual assault survivor in the eyes and asking "did he grape you?" it's absolutely fucking absurd, but these young interns and new hires are coming into an environment where we deal with survivors of all different kinds of abuse, and they're coming with the mindset that the words are as bad as the actions, and that makes them shitty at the job and look juvenile af
i HATE self-censorship for a lot of reasons, but being in crisis work makes it even more frustrating. who are you censoring for? like i am being so fr, WHO are you censoring for? have you even thought it through? people who have been raped know that they have been raped. if someone attempts suicide or is grieving someone who did, saying "sewer slide" isn't going to protect them from any of the feelings. a murder victim's family isn't going to feel better bc you said "unalived" instead of murdered. if anything, it's just extremely invalidating and othering. it's saying "what happened to you is so bad that i won't even say the word," which is NOT trauma-informed care. you are not protecting survivors/victims when you self-censor. the ONLY things you protect when you self-censor are the puritanical ideologies that are being encouraged by rich fascists who want your money and obedience
say the fucking words, guys. just say the goddamn words before i go insane!!!
Question that I'm asking in good faith because I really do want to know about it: why does Herzl describe israel as a colony if it isn't one?
(All good faith questions are welcome, Anon - thanks for this one!)
TLDR: Because words change meanings over time and Herzl wasn't psychic.
In the 1890s, "colony" just meant a planned settlement or concentrated community. This included Jewish agricultural colonies in the Pale, temperance colonies in Colorado, and utopian communes everywhere.
It was basically the Victorian word for "intentional community," with absolutely no imperial baggage required.
The specific meaning activists now deploy (colony as racial domination, metropole extraction, indigenous suppression) is a 20th century framework that didn't exist when Herzl was writing in 1896.
So a reader of the 21st century finds the word "colony" in an old text and assumes it carries a technical definition that was coined decades later.
It's a little like finding the word "trauma" in a Civil War field report and concluding the surgeon was diagnosing PTSD.
Meanwhile, 'settler colonialism' as applied to Israel isn't a neutral analytical tool that happens to fit badly. It's a framework specifically constructed to exclude the features that distinguish Jewish return from actual settler colonialism...and it still fails on its own stated terms.
Jewish immigrants to the Levant were never agents of any empire. They were overwhelmingly refugees from empires who were fleeing Russian pogroms, Eastern European persecution, and later Nazi Germany. No metropole sent them. No metropole would take them back if the project failed.
That's not a minor quibble about definitions, either - it's the primary distinction between settler colonialism and every other form of large population movement in history.
There's also the matter of indigeneity. The Jews returning to the Levant weren't arriving in a place with which they had no connection.
Jewish presence in the region is documented continuously from ancient history, including in Egyptian records dating to roughly 1210 BCE.
The religious, linguistic, and ancestral connection to the land is what distinguishes this case from the British in Kenya or the French in Algeria, who had no such ties - and it is some of the best-documented, most indisputable history humans have ever gathered. (This is why they're so constantly engaged in historical revisionism.)
So when proponents of the settler colonialism framework of accusation encounter these objections, what do they do?
They move the goalposts.
The absence of a metropole gets explained away as an "exception."
The indigenous origin of the Jewish people to the Levant gets ahistorically dismissed or ignored, despite the fact that the Jewish people are the only group whose national identity, language, and religion originated in and remained oriented toward that specific land throughout their entire existence.
The framework gets rewritten and the history is revised until Israel fits the allegation.
So, one word in Der Judenstaat doesn't settle* any of this.
From The Atlantic: The False Narrative of Settler Colonialism (paywall bypassed)
Okay, there's actually a lot of interesting history around this, so let's dig into it.
It's completely correct that the semiotics of "colony", "colonization", etc., have evolved over time, and that back in the late 19th Century when Herzl was writing the connotation was more neutral than it became in the 20th Century. (I also need to stress that that one "it is something colonial" quote-mine you see shared everywhere is from a letter that was never even sent, because Herzl realized it was a bad idea.)
But more to the point: the old guard Zionists were fully aware of accusations they were European colonizers - and they actively refuted those claims.
— Jews and Muslims in the Arab World: Haunted by Pasts Real and Imagined (Jacob Lassner, Ilan S. Troen, 2007)
— Hebrew Repatriation to Eretz Yisrael (Samuel Kruglikoff, 1930)
— Eliahu Eliachar, Testimony to UNSCOP (United Nations Special Committee on Palestine) Regarding Jews in Arab Countries (1947)
— Ber Borochov, Poalei Tziyon Peace Manifesto (1917)
— David Ben-Gurion, Statement to the Elected Assembly of Palestine Jewry (1947)
Zionists wrote copious volumes about the indigeneity of Judeans to Eretz Yisrael, and denying accusations that they were merely pawns of an imperialist agenda (initially it was claimed they were Russian agents, and then later British colonists) or seeking to conquer or to exploit the land or its people. Contrary to the popular claim that Zionists thought (or promoted the concept) the land was uninhabited, a very substantial amount was written about the Palestinians (particularly from the perspective of class analysis), and how the return and liberation of Judeans must go hand-in-hand with class solidarity and the liberation of Arab workers. In other words: the exact opposite of colonialism. What we today would call decolonization - and specifically decolonization via proletarian revolution.
The simplistic quote-mining about "colonization" used today is a hundred years outdated: all such arguments were debunked before the state was even founded.
Yeah okay, those edits were made by her dad, a cishet person - and also her dad, a Holocaust survivor, who would have been brutally aware that when the diary was first published in freakin’ 1947, had he included anything which people could use to demonize his daughter or tar her as some kind of “pervert”, it would prevent the message he was trying to send about the horrors of the Holocaust and the heroism of his daughter from being properly understood and accepted the way he hoped.
That isn’t fair. It isn’t just. But it is reality. If Otto Frank had let this be included in the published version, there’s a large chance the homophobic backlash would have prevented the book from reaching the audience it did and spreading the message it needed to. It was NINETEEN. FORTY. SEVEN. The Holocaust had ended TWO YEARS AGO. The acceptance of LGBT identities was basically nonexistent. Otto Frank made a decision based on the time and place he was living in, about what the world at that time was and wasn’t ready to accept.
Let me say this as bluntly as I can - I am a bisexual Jewish girl and I would have made the same decision Otto Frank did. Making sure Anne Frank was unambiguously seen as sympathic and heroic was more important. Making sure people weren’t sidetracked from the main issue of the Holocaust was more important. He shouldn’t have had to make that decision, without doubt. Anne Frank’s sexuality (however she would have identified in modern terms) shouldn’t be considered relevant to her status as a hero or a sympathetic victim. But in 1947, it undoubtedly would have been.
Otto Frank survived Auschwitz and lost his entire family (a wife and two teenage daughters) to the horrors of the Holocaust. He hoped that publishing his daughter’s diary would spread awareness and sympathy for the victims of the Holocaust. If he had to make sacrifices to do that - well frankly, so fucking be it. I don’t know who alive today has the right to judge him.
i think its also important to note that like. hmm.
im bisexual and i had experiences like that, kissing other girls at sleepovers specifically, and it not only took me another half a decade to start identifying as bi, but all the girls i did that with grew up to be straight women.
having those kinds of feelings and experiences at that age may mean nothing about your sexual orientation.
She was still killed for being Jewish. We do not know how she would have identified, because she was killed because she was a Jew. She was not your blorbo, she was not a fictional character, and it’s disgusting to talk about her possible queerness while erasing the aspect of her identity that got her killed, namely that she was Jewish, especially as antisemitic attacks against Jews are at a record high. You can’t talk about Anne Frank without talking about her Jewishness. And you should go read People Love Dead Jews right now.
There is a rather large section of "leftist" activists who perceive themselves as some sort of paragons of virtue, of possessing a superior form of morality than "ordinary" folk, who view anyone not in activist circles as people who don't care about the world around them or can't be bothered and are somehow more likely to be bigoted or narrow in some form.
And I've honestly found that it's ordinary people living ordinary lives, performing small acts of kindness for their neighbours, caring for their communities, and forming genuine human connections with each other who do the most good in actuality, and those activists who set themselves apart and above others with their saviour mentality, who pick apart every word and action, that foster fear and anxiety.
Where's the "holocaust was about gay people first" when it comes to nazi tattoos? Fucking nowhere, because it was never about defending gays, it was about dehumanizing jews.
Now that leftists are openly supporting a Nazi candidate and are best buddies with MTG and Tucker Carlson in the Year of Hell 2026, I'm owed $10 from every single leftist on here who heckled me after the 2024 election when I said leftism is a white grievance ideology.
This from Matthew 5:13-16. 😐. The first book of the new testament, gospel of Matthew. Look me in the fucking eye jvp and tell me you're a serious Jewish org.
Also some other things I unfortunately had to see while searching for it. (Their haggadah is littered with mistakes.)
Not correct grammar. It should be chag pesach sameach. Unless you're telling the 'concept of pesach' chag sameach. This is like writing: happy holiday, Easter. Instead of: happy Easter holiday.
I can barely read their atrocious handwriting. (Maybe make the circle bigger instead of shoving it all in there.) But what's checked in red is an incorrect translation. Unless there's some extra meaning I'm missing here truth ≠ מלכות. (Truth = emet／אמת.)
the "ten spiritual plagues" is pulling on the concept of sfirot (ספירות) from kabbalah, which is why the hebrew used doesn't align with the definitions of the words in modern hebrew. as far as i can tell the english versions are accurate—they probably just googled "kabbalah spheres" and copied it. i don't know much about kabbalah but i imagine this is a total bastardization of the concept lol
This doesn't surprise me at all. JVP's "spiritual leaders" are the Kohenet, whose siddur contains things such as devotions to pagan goddesses and at least one demon, a blatant rip off of Indigenous spiritual practice, and a crap ton of Hebrew mistakes.
imagine saying someone is “Spiritually Chinese” as an insult. revoltingly racist. this is what “Spiritually Israeli” sounds like to anyone who isn’t also revoltingly racist.
Wow I wonder if the person denying China’s genocide against the Uyghur Muslims and their aid in Russia’s genocide against Ukrainians actually cares about genocide, or if they’re just looking for an excuse to insult Jewish culture. Who could tell?
best part of the world cup so far is the commentators qualifying everything the canadian team does for the first time with “for the men’s national team” because the women have done it already
A Letter to the Minnesota DFL on Blackness, Belonging, and the Politics of Approval
Hey, Jumblr! Seeing anything familiar in this piece? (Bolding by me)
So that "no other minority" thing? Not true. Unfortunately, it shows that the problem is bigger and more widespread than is often assumed.
I have spent much of my adult life arguing with the Democratic Party.
I have questioned candidates. I have questioned policies. I have questioned priorities. I have sat in meetings, attended conventions, organized communities, and participated in countless conversations where disagreement was not only expected but necessary. Politics, after all, is not a religion. It is an ongoing argument about how we ought to live together.
Questioning the party is not new for me.
What is new is the growing realization that the questions themselves have become unwelcome.
That realization has been slow and, at times, painful. It did not arrive through a single election cycle, a single candidate, or a single controversy. It emerged through years of watching a political movement increasingly define itself through the language of inclusion while becoming less comfortable with disagreement. It emerged through countless conversations in which difficult questions were acknowledged but not answered. It emerged through the subtle but unmistakable feeling that belonging was no longer rooted in shared values, but in ideological compliance.
As a Black woman, that feeling is difficult to ignore because it carries echoes of a much older story.
Over the last several years, I have watched the Minnesota DFL increasingly define itself through the language of identity. Diversity, equity, inclusion, representation, belonging these words appear everywhere. They are repeated in speeches, campaign materials, conventions, and community meetings. Yet the more frequently I hear these words, the more I find myself wondering whether we have confused representation with liberation and symbolism with solidarity.
The contradiction became impossible for me to ignore as conversations unfolded around Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt. To be clear, this is not an argument against criticism. Public officials should be questioned. They should be challenged. Accountability is not oppression, and disagreement is not discrimination.
What troubled me was something else entirely.
What troubled me was watching people who proudly place Black Lives Matter signs in their yards, who speak passionately about protecting democracy, who insist that we must believe Black women, suddenly abandon those principles when confronted with a Black woman they disagreed with.
The issue at hand was the federal immigration enforcement surge that swept across the Twin Cities. People were angry. Fear was real. Communities were frightened. But what I could not understand was why so much of that anger became directed at Sheriff Witt, a county sheriff who neither created federal immigration policy nor controlled federal immigration enforcement.
Yet as I listened to accounts from those present, I heard story after story of people literally turning their backs as she spoke. Not debating her. Not questioning her. Not engaging her. Turning away from her.
There was something profoundly symbolic in that image. A Black woman standing before a crowd that regularly invokes the language of justice, inclusion, representation, and solidarity, only to be met with a gesture of rejection. And I found myself wondering what happens when our slogans collide with our actions. What does it mean to proclaim that Black lives matter, that Black women should be believed, and that democracy requires listening, only to dismiss the experiences of Black women when those experiences become uncomfortable?
And I found myself wondering what happened to all of the slogans.
Where were the lawn signs?
Where were the declarations that Black lives matter?
Where were the calls to believe Black women?
Where was the insistence that democracy depends upon listening, especially when we disagree?
Because democracy is not tested when we hear voices that affirm our existing beliefs. Democracy is tested when we encounter voices that challenge them.
What unsettled me most was not the treatment of Sheriff Witt alone. It was what followed.
What struck me was not disagreement. Disagreement would have required engagement. It would have required listening, asking questions, and taking seriously the experiences that were being shared. Reasonable people can witness the same event and come away with different conclusions. That is not what troubled me. What troubled me was the absence of any real effort to grapple with what Black women and Black elders in my community were trying to communicate.
In the days that followed, I listened as people shared their experiences of what they witnessed. I listened to Black women describe their discomfort. I listened to elders whose commitment to civil rights, coalition building, and community organizing stretches back decades reflect on what they had seen and why it troubled them. These were not people looking for an argument. They were not demanding agreement. They were asking a simple question: Can we talk honestly about what happened?
That is the question I cannot shake. Not because everyone must agree about what happened, but because so many people seemed unwilling to even examine why Black women and Black elders walked away with the same sense of unease. What I witnessed was not a debate. It was a refusal to engage. And I keep returning to the same unsettling thought: What does it mean to invite people to share their lived experiences if we have already decided which experiences are worthy of our attention?
What troubled me most was not just the treatment of one sheriff. It was the realization that many of the same political spaces that insist Black voices matter often appear uncomfortable when Black people exercise independent political judgment. Blackness is celebrated when it confirms the movement’s assumptions. Blackness becomes suspect when it complicates them.
This is not a new phenomenon. Black Americans have spent generations navigating institutions that welcomed our participation while attempting to regulate our autonomy. Historically, this took obvious forms: legal exclusion, segregation, voter suppression, and discrimination. Today the mechanisms are more subtle, but the underlying question remains remarkably similar: Who gets to determine which Black voices are legitimate?
That question has been sitting heavily on my mind because I increasingly see a form of politics that claims to celebrate diversity while quietly narrowing the range of acceptable thought. The expectation is rarely stated outright. No one hands you a list of approved opinions. Yet the boundaries become clear enough. Certain conclusions are rewarded. Certain questions are discouraged. Certain forms of dissent are interpreted not as disagreement but as moral failure.
As a Black woman, I find that deeply unsettling.
I have spent much of my life watching other people project their expectations onto Black bodies. I have watched institutions tell us who we should be, what we should prioritize, and what forms of expression are acceptable. What I did not expect was to encounter a progressive version of the same instinct. Different language. Different intentions. The same impulse to determine which forms of Blackness deserve validation.
Increasingly, it feels as though support is conditional. Representation is conditional. Solidarity is conditional.
We are told Black lives matter, but I find myself wondering whether what is actually meant is that Black lives matter when they remain politically useful. Black voices matter when they affirm prevailing narratives. Black women matter when they arrive at approved conclusions. Once disagreement enters the picture, the celebration often fades.
The irony is difficult to ignore. Movements that speak passionately about dismantling systems of power can become remarkably uncomfortable when marginalized people exercise power in unexpected ways. Organizations that champion diversity often struggle with genuine diversity of thought. Communities that celebrate authenticity can become suspicious of anyone who refuses to perform the identity they have been assigned.
This realization has forced me to confront an uncomfortable truth. The political tradition I inherited taught me that coalition building requires humility. It requires accepting that people who share your values may disagree about solutions. It requires the ability to remain in relationship with those who challenge your assumptions. What I increasingly see instead is a politics of litmus tests a politics where belonging depends less on shared principles than on ideological conformity.
That is what grieves me.
Not that people disagree. Disagreement is healthy. Disagreement is necessary. What grieves me is the growing sense that many institutions no longer know how to hold disagreement without interpreting it as betrayal.
And so I find myself asking a question I never expected to ask of the Minnesota DFL: If your commitment to Black voices disappears the moment those voices challenge you, what exactly is it that you are committed to?
Because there is a difference between supporting Black people and supporting a particular performance of Blackness.
There is a difference between representation and agency.
There is a difference between inclusion and obedience.
The distance between those ideas may be the distance between the party I once knew and the party standing before me today.
At a time where jewish groups are being banned from pride events, you do not get to use Anne Franke, a dead jew murdered for being jewish before she could ever come out, as a puppet for whatever queer rights message you want to share.
You do not get to profit, financially or attention wise or another way, off of a *potentially* queer jew whilst we are banned from pride events.
We do not know if she was questioning her sexuality but ultimately straight or if she was actually queer because she was killed for the crime of existing as a jew before she could come out. Queer rights obviously matter. Anne Franke is not the person you should be using.
You need to protect alive queer jews. You need to love all jews, not just the dead ones.
I've had to delete multiple comments missing the point of the post
"But they banned zionists not jews", they banned jewish organizations, who refused to say they disavowed israel. That's like asking a local Chinese diaspora group to disavow the CCP or they can't be at pride.
The reason why its antisemitic is because its treating jewish organizations as guilty until proven innocent. Its treating jewish organizations as somehow being responsible for a foreign government's actions. Jewish organizations have to say again and again that they do not support the Israeli government to be allowed to exist in public. Its an extra step that non jewish organizations do not face. That's the antisemitism of it all. No other group was forced to disavow israel to attend pride.
tangentwithtanner
theartofmadeline
blakekathryn
yousharknotpass
gummygunk
gracieabrams
2087
romaincrisis
gamechangershow
