(Source: twitter.com, via chupadactyl)

grijzegans:

MAD Magazine recreates Norman Rockwell’s famous 1958 painting ‘The Runaway’

(via chupadactyl)

timballisto said: I'm writing a paper about the internalized racism in Shakespeare's Othello. Do you have any good sources about the Elizabethan interactions with people of color that can give me some context for this play? I asked my professor but he gave me the "there were no african peoples (Moors or otherwise) in England in this time period" spiel, but I'm sensing bullshit. Thank you!

medievalpoc:

medievalpoc:

thirddeadlysin:

medievalpoc:

Uhhhhh.

Okay well your professor lied to you.

Actually there were so many Black British at that time that Elizabeth I tried to blame the realms ills on them and have them all deported. Twice. She failed, probably because you can’t deport your own citizens very well under most circumstances. It’s actually a pretty pivotal point in English history.

Here’s one of the letters from her own hand:

image

[transcript]

An open le[tt]re to the L[ord] Maiour of London and th’alermen his brethren, And to all other Maiours, Sheryfes, &c. Her Ma[jes]tieunderstanding that there are of late divers Blackmoores brought into the Realme, of which kinde of people there are all ready here to manie,consideringe howe God hath blessed this land w[i]th great increase of people of our owne Nation as anie Countrie in the world, wherof manie for want of Service and meanes to sett them on worck fall to Idlenesse and to great extremytie; Her Ma[jesty’]s pleasure therefore ys, that those kinde of people should be sent forthe of the lande. And for that purpose there ys direction given to this bearer Edwarde Banes to take of those Blackmoores that in this last voyage under Sir Thomas Baskervile, were brought into this Realme to the nomber of Tenn, to be Transported by him out of the Realme. Wherein wee Req[uire] you to be aydinge & Assysting unto him as he shall have occacion, and thereof not to faile.

You can read another one in its entirety here.

Elizabeth I tried to use Black British as scapegoats for some of the problems in English society during the Elizabethan Era, problems that led to the passing of the famous Poor Laws in 1597 and 1601.

From The British National Archives:

But while Elizabeth may have enjoyed being entertained by Black people, in the 1590s she also issued proclamations against them. In 1596 she wrote to the lord mayors of major cities noting that there were ‘of late divers blackmoores brought into this realm, of which kind of people there are already here to manie…’. She ordered that ‘those kinde of people should be sente forth of the land’.

Elizabeth made an arrangement for a merchant, Casper van Senden, to deport Black people from England in 1596. The aim seems to have been to exchange them for (or perhaps to sell them to obtain funds to buy) English prisoners held by England’s Catholic enemies Spain and Portugal.

No doubt van Senden intended to sell these people. But this was not to be, because masters* of Black workers - who had not been offered compensation - refused to let them go. In 1601, Elizabeth issued a further proclamation expressing her ‘discontentment by the numbers of blackamores which are crept into this realm…’ and again licensing van Senden to deport Black people. It is doubtful whether this second proclamation was any more successful than the first.

Why this sudden, urgent desire to expel members of England’s Black population? It was more than a commercial transaction pursued by the queen. In the 16th century, the ruling classes became increasingly concerned about poverty and vagrancy, as the feudal system- which, in theory, had kept everyone in their place - finally broke down. They feared disorder and social breakdown and, blaming the poor, brought in poor laws to try to deal with the problem

As you can see, Black people were a pretty important and pivotal part of English society at the time. Basically, the Queen tried to convince the people that they had to “give up” their cobbler’s apprentices and weavers and other various other workingpeople (the Black musicians in the court were of course exempt from the deportations) to the crown, on the basis that they were “vagrants” and “mostly infidels”. This was not only a wild exaggeration (most were Christian with working class jobs like ya do), but it’s not a very compelling reason to frigging report your next-door neighbor Bill the Mason to immigration. Because then who’s going to do your masonry?

So anyways, the Poor Laws had to be passed, because you can’t deport your citizens/workforce and no one would cooperate with something like that.

And it’s not like those people went anywhere. They’re still there. They were there before that! Some had been there since like, the 4th frigging century when that was part of the Roman Empire!

Also check the tag for England here. Plenty more on lots of different people of color in England throughout many eras.

* this generally refers to the “master” of a workshop or guildmaster, not necessarily the master of an enslaved person, FYI.

oh my god how is this something i never learned about in three separate elizabethan era-focused classes??? (no need to answer; i know how) 

Three? Three?

Like, I thought my capacity to be disappointed in history education was full, but I guess not.

Seriously, the next time someone sends a message about how this is stuff “everyone knows” remind me to link this.

Reblogging this for the last five people who asked me if there are enough people who don’t know that POC lived in Europe in the past to “justify” Medievalpoc’s existence….

Because sometimes those people are your professor. Or someone who took three Elizabethan Era focused classes. Because I think everyone should know these things, whether you’re a history fan or not.

kinkyturtle:

jcoleknowsbest:

So my facebook friend just posted this pic with this text….


Well, I just witnessed blatant racial injustice with my own eyes. I was getting in my car after exiting a store when a young black man stumbled past me and collapsed against the store wall. When I got out to see if he was okay, a group of white people came rushing over, one of whom was a 20-something white woman who declared in distress, “I ran a red light and hit him with my car!” People immediately assured her that SHE would be okay, meanwhile the young man is writhing in pain on the ground, pants leg torn, tears running down his face. When the police arrived and the young woman explained what happened, it was suggested to her that maybe the light had been yellow and that the young man had “darted out into the street into her path.” I was floored. I said, “But she just SAID she ran the red light and hit him in the intersection!” 





The police officers then led the young woman away and began talking with her privately in low tones. When the paramedics FINALLY got there I was surprised at the hostility they showed towards the young man. One blonde female EMT (shown in the photo) suggested that he couldn’t be THAT hurt if he was able to walk from the place where he was struck to the sidewalk where he finally collapsed. White bystanders commented several times about “What that poor girl must be going through.” I was the only one who commented on what the young man must be going through, what, with his mangled leg and all. I am absolutely positive that in the end “that poor girl” will be absolved of all wrongdoing and be able to go on her merry way. After all, she just ran a red light and slammed her car into the body of some black kid on a bike, right?And people wonder why black people are so angry and want to break shit.
















friendly reminder that studies have shown that white people do not empathize with Black people and we (including medical personel) also think Black people feel less pain

kinkyturtle:

jcoleknowsbest:

So my facebook friend just posted this pic with this text….

Well, I just witnessed blatant racial injustice with my own eyes. I was getting in my car after exiting a store when a young black man stumbled past me and collapsed against the store wall. When I got out to see if he was okay, a group of white people came rushing over, one of whom was a 20-something white woman who declared in distress, “I ran a red light and hit him with my car!” People immediately assured her that SHE would be okay, meanwhile the young man is writhing in pain on the ground, pants leg torn, tears running down his face. When the police arrived and the young woman explained what happened, it was suggested to her that maybe the light had been yellow and that the young man had “darted out into the street into her path.” I was floored. I said, “But she just SAID she ran the red light and hit him in the intersection!” 

The police officers then led the young woman away and began talking with her privately in low tones. When the paramedics FINALLY got there I was surprised at the hostility they showed towards the young man. One blonde female EMT (shown in the photo) suggested that he couldn’t be THAT hurt if he was able to walk from the place where he was struck to the sidewalk where he finally collapsed. White bystanders commented several times about “What that poor girl must be going through.” I was the only one who commented on what the young man must be going through, what, with his mangled leg and all. I am absolutely positive that in the end “that poor girl” will be absolved of all wrongdoing and be able to go on her merry way. After all, she just ran a red light and slammed her car into the body of some black kid on a bike, right?

And people wonder why black people are so angry and want to break shit.

friendly reminder that studies have shown that white people do not empathize with Black people and we (including medical personel) also think Black people feel less pain

(via chupadactyl)

fieldbears:

istudypirates:

claudiaboleyn:

burntlikethesun:

loremipsumfandom:

fauxkaren:

quantumblog:

trying-to-resonate-concrete:

Dear STFU-Moffat and associates,

From now on, I insist you describe Steven Moffat as “Emmy-award winning writer Steven Moffat.” Just to make sure you’re being fair.

Emmy-award winning writer Steven Moffat is a queerbaiting hack

Emmy-award winning writer Steven Moffat’s writing features sexism and overly complicated plots that don’t really make any sense.

Emmy-award winning writer Steven Moffat has characters needlessly tell the viewer information that he should be showing them.

Emmy-award winning writer Steven Moffat is incapable of creating real emotional stakes in his stories.

Emmy-award winning writer Steven Moffat calls teenage mother a ‘slut’ in DVD commentary

Emmy-award winning writer Steven Moffat says bisexuals are too busy having sex to watch television, and therefore don’t need representing.

Emmy-award winning writer Steven Moffat thinks asexuals are too boring to write about. 

Emmy-award winning writer Steven Moffat thinks the only important people in London are white people and enjoys racist, sexist tropes.

*sips tea*

gayonthemoon1239:

rifa:

actualbloggerwangyao:

alvaroandtheworld:

ultrafacts:

Source For more posts like this, follow Ultrafacts

THE BEGINNINGS OF KAWAII

No, no, you have no idea. It actually IS the beginning of the whole so-called “kawaii culture”. And it started because girls started using mechanical pencils, which provided fine handwriting. After being banished (more precisely, during the 80s), this kind of writing started being used in products like magazines and make-up. And, during this time, icons we usually associate with the whole kawaii industry (like the characters from Sanrio) came to life too.
And what many people don’t realize is that this subculture was born as a way for young girls to express themselves in their own way. And it was also used as something against the adult life and the traditional culture, often seen as dull and boring and oppressive. By embracing cuteness, these young girls (and adult women, after a while) were showing non-conformation with the current standards.
So yep. Kawaii is important, and it all started with cute, simple handwritting a few hearts and cat faces in some girls’ school notebooks <3

!!!!!
NO OK THIS IS SO IMPORTANT!
This is also how the kawaii fashions started! Girls began dressing in cute and off beat styles for themsleves, they were criticized by adult figures telling them “you’ll never find a husband if you dress that way!” to which they began to reply “Good!”
All the japanese subcultures and fashions that evolved out of this became a rebellion to tradition and the starch gender roles and expectations the adults were forcing on the younger generations. As early as the 70s and still to this day you’ll see an emphasis on child-like fashion and themes in more kawaii styles and the dismissal of the male gaze with styles like lolita (a lot of western people assume lolita is somehow sexual due to the name of the fashion, but ask any japanese lolita and they will tell you that men hate the style and find it unattractive which is sometimes a large reason they gravitate towards the style - they can express their femininity and individuality while remaining independent and without the pressure to appeal to men)
Its so so so important to understand the hyper cute and ‘odd’ fashions of Japanese girls carry such a huge message of feminism and reclaiming of their own lives.   

so are you telling me that Japan’s punk phase was really the kawaii phase

gayonthemoon1239:

rifa:

actualbloggerwangyao:

alvaroandtheworld:

ultrafacts:

Source For more posts like this, follow Ultrafacts

THE BEGINNINGS OF KAWAII

No, no, you have no idea. It actually IS the beginning of the whole so-called “kawaii culture”. And it started because girls started using mechanical pencils, which provided fine handwriting. After being banished (more precisely, during the 80s), this kind of writing started being used in products like magazines and make-up. And, during this time, icons we usually associate with the whole kawaii industry (like the characters from Sanrio) came to life too.

And what many people don’t realize is that this subculture was born as a way for young girls to express themselves in their own way. And it was also used as something against the adult life and the traditional culture, often seen as dull and boring and oppressive. By embracing cuteness, these young girls (and adult women, after a while) were showing non-conformation with the current standards.

So yep. Kawaii is important, and it all started with cute, simple handwritting a few hearts and cat faces in some girls’ school notebooks <3


!!!!!

NO OK THIS IS SO IMPORTANT!

This is also how the kawaii fashions started! Girls began dressing in cute and off beat styles for themsleves, they were criticized by adult figures telling them “you’ll never find a husband if you dress that way!” to which they began to reply “Good!”

All the japanese subcultures and fashions that evolved out of this became a rebellion to tradition and the starch gender roles and expectations the adults were forcing on the younger generations. As early as the 70s and still to this day you’ll see an emphasis on child-like fashion and themes in more kawaii styles and the dismissal of the male gaze with styles like lolita (a lot of western people assume lolita is somehow sexual due to the name of the fashion, but ask any japanese lolita and they will tell you that men hate the style and find it unattractive which is sometimes a large reason they gravitate towards the style - they can express their femininity and individuality while remaining independent and without the pressure to appeal to men)

Its so so so important to understand the hyper cute and ‘odd’ fashions of Japanese girls carry such a huge message of feminism and reclaiming of their own lives.   

so are you telling me that Japan’s punk phase was really the kawaii phase

(via ottermatopoeia)