Gwyn Fae/She TME White Communist 20
No Proship please
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

No title available

#extradirty
tumblr dot com
will byers stan first human second

JVL
wallacepolsom

No title available
dirt enthusiast
🪼

blake kathryn

PR's Tumblrdome
noise dept.
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

roma★

Janaina Medeiros
taylor price

Product Placement
Cosmic Funnies
AnasAbdin
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from North Macedonia
seen from Türkiye
seen from North Macedonia

seen from Egypt

seen from United States
seen from North Macedonia

seen from United States
seen from North Macedonia
seen from China
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from United States
seen from North Macedonia

seen from North Macedonia
@luvmaterial
Gwyn Fae/She TME White Communist 20
No Proship please
I always get confused on why in a lot of cases Che is portrayed in a more positive light than Fidel. I mean there’s anticomms who obviously slander both of them but like also I see a lot of discourses, media, video essays, journals and books portraying Che as a hero and Fidel in a very slandered dehumanized way like someone who just wanted power. I personally find it an issue because it frames the revolution with purity standards or sanitizes it. Medias that claim to be left-leaning/centrist in regards to presenting themselves as ‘nuanced’ even have this bias. There’s probably different reasons this is done but I’m interested in knowing the key reasons, and also why they try to portray Fidel and Ches relationship as negative when in fact they were friends.
To sum up the answer: Che died a revolutionary, Fidel lived as a head of state
That is a reductive summary, but it is at the core of why Che is popularised and Fidel is not. I'm not even talking about the commodification of Che's image and reputation, because this issue goes beyond ignorant tourists who buy t-shirts with his face on it
It is very easy to relate to the ideals that both Che and Fidel fought for, it would be a challenge trying to find someone that says it's a bad thing to feed and house a people who have been brutalised by a dictator
But Che was a martyr, he died in the early years of the revolution and he was never a head of state like Fidel. The repressive measures taken to protect the Cuban revolution and the collective rights it gave to the Cuban people were never assigned to him, he never had to face that
But Fidel? He was the one who lived, who authorised the imprisonment of dissidents; he oversaw crackdowns like the Black Spring, he kept a tight control over the press and the media. When people see Fidel, they see policies. When they see Che, they see ideals
And most people do not want to confront what it takes to protect the ideals that Che died for. It's a pretty horrible world that we live in, because it is true that expansive political plurality is incompatible with workers' liberation. A common thing I've noticed is a tendency to criticise Fidel's "human rights record" without ever offering alternatives to his policies. The principle I abide by is that if you cannot suggest a feasible alternative, you don't have the right to condemn the decision that was made, although most people aren't quite that reflective or harsh (whichever way you see it)
If Che had lived, if he was head of state instead, I do believe he would have been as harsh, if not harsher, than Fidel. He was not cruel, in fact I do love him and look up to him as one of my biggest role models, but he openly admired Stalin. He always advocated for press control, he was determined that political opposition be banned, and he was upset when Fidel ended the revolutionary executions to appease the US. But the memory of Che is not that, the memory of Che is one of romantic sacrifice and heroism
The survivor (in this case, Fidel) does not have that same privilege. The good of the revolution is assigned to Che because it allows people to avoid a reality that is violently contrary to what they've grown up with, whereas all the bad is assigned to Fidel
Plus a part of it is just indicative of a very reductive way of viewing history. The Cuban revolution is often represented as if it was "corrupted" by communism, by Fidel. That is a much more simplistic version of history, and thus easier to teach people. It's also more compatible with the individualism of the capitalist world, great man theory and all that
The reason their relationship is portrayed as negative is similar I think, but there's probably several reasons for it. A big one is that it helps to reinforce the aforementioned "Che good, Fidel bad" binary that dominates discourse about the revolution. But there were also rumours at the time of Che's death, and even before, about Fidel betraying Che. Maybe they were propagated by the US? I don't know, but they existed either way. A similar thing happened with Camilo's death, where the revolutionary government was blamed. Anti-communist rhetoric certainly had a lot to do with it, and the demonisation of Fidel
I hope this answer was sufficient :)
unless you want to teach small kids about a laundry list of sex acts, they're not going to even recognise many acts of CSA as sexual in nature. instead, we need to have children who are raised with an expectation of bodily autonomy and who feel comfortable complaining when they're made or asked to do things they don't feel comfortable with. we need children to have the expectation that those complaints will be taken seriously and that they'll receive backup to make sure situations like that don't continue. if their desires for bodily autonomy are consistently ignored, how can we expect them to speak out when something confusing and uncomfortable happens with their parent, cousin, or babysitter? we've already taught them that what they feel comfortable with doesn't matter
Happy 30th Anniversary to Genealogy of the Holy War - here’s hoping we get that remake soon!
Just so we're clear both Hamas and Hezbollah are 100% justified in any aggression towards Israel.
Both of these resistance groups are a response to Israel's violent occupation and invasions in the region. Hezbollah emerged in 1982 after Israel invaded Lebanon. Hamas was created after the first Intifada in 87.
There's genuinely no argument downstream of this reality that is worth listening to. You can't criticize people for resisting occupation. You also can't expect these groups to disarm while the very threat that created them still exists.
And yes I support all violent acts by Hamas and Hezbollah towards the Zionist entity
Israel has demanded that the Lebanese flee from Tyre, Nabatieh, and the entirety of South Lebanon, declaring everything south of the Litani river a 'combat zone'. Unable to defeat an outnumbered and outgunned Lebanese resistance, the apartheid regime and its legions of Tel Aviv übermenschen are resorting to their usual strategy: war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and massive, self-destructive violence. May Lebanon bury them.
I understand that people do this because it's easier to write but I honestly think we need to stop saying "amab" and "afab" and start writing them out in full more often. better yet, bring back the c. "coercively assigned male at birth" and "coercively assigned female at birth". people have gotten way too comfortable latching onto the m or f and using them as shorthand for "male" and "female" even though the point of these terms has always been to highlight that sex is something that you are assigned at birth and coerced into performing. it's not a neutral observation about a baby's genitalia, it's an active assignment that is forced upon you against your will the moment you're born, before you're even capable of understanding the words being used to make that assignment
Cute mizisua happy pride month guys…
“Hoshi no Kirby Twinkle Sweets Time” by Nintendo/Kirby and RE-MENT ໒꒰ྀི˃ ⤙ ˂ ꒱ྀིა
First son of the sea
@alnstfashionzine
– 🩷
Sua cupid💘