christinefriar:

I. love. the. Anaconda. video. but the writeups I’ve been seeing keep referring to Drake as a co-star, which I think misses a big part of the point.

The reason this video rules is because Drake is an extra. Drake is a prop. Drake is a bro in the comfy-casual clothes that he rolled up to the set in, who has no lines or purpose other than the be ground upon, and whose face is obscured by shadows most of the time.

This is not a continuation of the Drake/Nicki/Rih media narrative. This is a dank-as-fuck feminist power play. This is, “Drake is whatever to me.” And this is a man who, if he isn’t at the top of his game, is close to it. A huge celebrity. And here is Nicki looking fucking amazing, tormenting him into a boner, then swatting his hand away and walking out of frame.

Your anaconda don’t want none unless she got buns, hun? Maybe she doesn’t want your anaconda. Maybe she’ll do whatever the fuck she wants with her buns, and it doesn’t matter what you think or feel.

(via slaymonsters)


1 hour ago 21619
nicki minaj,

shortformblog:

msnbc:

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

Violence continues to erupt in Ferguson, Mo., more than a week after the fatal shooting of unarmed teen Michael Brown by policeman Darren Wilson. The 18-year-old’s family demands justice be brought to their…

(via slaymonsters)


1 hour ago 6902
ferguson, mike brown,

frantzfandom:

thegreatnessideserve:

dionysias:

 

And could we throw in the fact that if you were for a sensible equality  you should be demanding not bombing anybody and not demand that just different people should have been killed?

Okay kids, gather round because you seem to be under the impression that this website owes you an education AND that your education on this subject is sufficient. Neither of those is true, but I’m gonna help you out anyway!

First, let’s discuss the “reasons for dropping the bomb” that are commonly given, but also happen to be totally wrong:

  • Japan wasn’t willing to surrender

Actually, Japan was totally down to surrender! America was very good at cracking Japanese codes, and had intercepted several diplomatic messages sent to other countries where Japan expressed the terms of their conditions, with the only major term being that the emperor remain in power (Which would have been necessary to ensure a peaceful transition to foreign government for the Japanese people). Harry Truman ignored these messages and prolonged the war until the completion of the atomic bomb so that it could be used. More on that later.

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China’s] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union …

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

  • It would have saved more lives than it took

Nah. Japan was actually on it’s last legs, and wouldn’t have been able to fight much longer at all, thanks to effective embargoes, blockades, and traditional bombing. They had all but run out of fuel, ammunition, and other war supplies.

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

  • Destroying two major military targets helped us out

LOL Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren’t selected because they were military targets (Because they weren’t military targets at all!). They were selected because they were large cities where the bombs would have the most devastating affect.

President Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it “saved millions of lives” by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.”

This was a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population.”

General George Marshall agreed:

Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”

As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns  … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.

Now, let’s discuss the the actual reasons for dropping the bomb:

  • To send a message to the Soviet Union
  • That’s it
  • It was strictly political
History.com notes:

By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.

New Scientist reportedin 2005:

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 wasmeant to kick-start the Cold Warrather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago wasdone more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.

So let’s recap:

Harry Truman purposely killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to make a political statement.

The US detonated the world’s first weapon of mass destruction simply to send a message to the Soviet Union and stop Red expansion into Asia.

I’m not saying the fact that one group of people (Who happened to be Asian) was viewed as disposable just to put on a show for another group of people (Who happened to also be white) is an act of racism.

I’m also not saying that we should examine the fact that no German or Italian families living in the US were put into containment camps out of fear of spies, but pretty much all Asian-Americans were (Because Asia is a country, obviously).

I AM saying that maybe you should consider that your history lessons in school were taught from books written by old white men, and they might read a little differently if they weren’t. 

Oh, and I’ll leave on this little note from President Truman’s youth. Again, I’m not saying he’s racist or anything, but…

In Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Bomb, Japanese American historian Ronald Takaki writes about the man who made the final decision to destroy two Japanese cities, President Harry Truman. This was the same man who, when he was younger, wrote the following in a letter to his future wife, Bess:

I think one man is as good as another, so long as he’s honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. My uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man of dust, a n*gger from mud, then threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion that negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia, and white men in Europe and America.

Hey look, sources where you can go and educate yourself about all of this, and fact check me while you’re at it!

deleting most of the dumb white bullshit for the historical mic drops

(via slaymonsters)


1 hour ago 59272
usa, japan, atomic bomb, world war ii, racism, politics, history,

shorthairedsif:

remember that time the mcu had a complex, multi-faceted, morally ambiguous poc character steeped in social allegory and the fandom reduced him to ‘motherfucker’ jokes and pulp fiction references

(via kissingcullens)


1 hour ago 1898
nick fury, captain america 2,

thetrolliestcritic:

nkhamiltons:

Because it’s still happening, i’m making this post

STOP USING THAT MILKY WASHED OUT PSD ON PEOPLE WITH OLIVE/BROWN/DARK SKIN

not only is it ugly anyway, but it lightens skintone, and that’s obviously a problem. that psd is only made for pale people and its meant to only compliment pale people - do not use it on brown/black! this is problem not only found in the 5h fandom, but all around tumblr as well. you need to understand that whitewashing poc is wrong and if you honestly don’t know why please google it.

don’t be afraid of vibrance and high saturation, it doesnt matter if it was a 2011 trend or w/e, it looks better than those milky psds. use more yellows and reds in your curves - brighten your colors!

i’ve made two things to help people edit less like this and here are the links:

tutorial on coloring edits with dark skinned people

psd that doesn’t lighten dark skinned people

if you want another psd or tutorial you can request me, i’ll do it

JUST STOP USING THAT UGLY MILKY WASHED OUT PSD

Y’all remember that time when I told these roleplay helpers to stop whitewashing people of color’s skin when they make edits, and lost some friends over it? Yep.

(via slaymonsters)


1 hour ago 4818
whitewashing,

To ignore the elders rallying for the sake of our babies and young people peacefully protesting on behalf of our future while some (white) visitors instigate disarray is morally reprehensible. Beyond Ferguson, the pattern is clear. Blacks are always to blame, even as we are brutalized by police, ghettoized by neoliberal policies, and disenfranchised by a racist criminal (in)justice system.

But that’s the crux of white supremacist racial logic: the problem with black people is … well, black people – not mass incarceration and the deindustrialization of urban America, not educational inequality and generational poverty, not 400 years of slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crow. To be black in America is to be victimized and then made responsible for our victimization. We built this country. But, apparently, it is we who are lazy and dependent. We are bullied politically, socially and economically. But it is we who are called ‘thugs.’

(Source: marrowack, via slaymonsters)


1 hour ago 23545

sinidentidades:

The Texas government has resolved to spend over $17 million a month (from funding for social services) on further militarizing the border with National Guard members, Department of Public Safety officers, and other local and state law enforcement officers.

Politicians at all levels have exploited the current humanitarian crisis on the border for their own interests by resorting to racist tactics, such as spreading fears of disease (a claim that has been disputed). These are tactics used to dehumanize a desperate group of people fleeing problems entirely out of their control in order to further propagate an agenda. The agenda in question being the overt militarization of the U.S./Mexico border. 

No amount of militarization will ever bring about the end of undocumented immigration because it’s a much more complicated issue than that. The further militarization and the recent presence of armed militias will not resolve the history of and current policies and warmongering the United States has used in Latin America to exploit its people and resources, leading to the current disarray that is often blamed on the people of Latin America.

Feel like you have something to say?

Take action!

Here’s some contact information:

Mailing Address

Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428

Delivery Address

Office of the Governor
State Insurance Building
1100 San Jacinto
Austin, Texas 78701

Telephone & Fax

  • Information and Referral Hotline [for Texas callers]: (800) 843-5789
  • Information and Referral and Opinion Hotline [for Austin, Texas and out-of-state callers]:(512) 463-1782
  • Office of the Governor Main Switchboard [office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CST]: (512) 463-2000
  • If you are using a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD),  call 711 to reach Relay Texas
  • Office of the Governor Fax: (512) 463-1849

Don’t know who represents you? Click here

DON’T STOP THERE.

Organize locally using social media, word of mouth, whatever you have at your disposal.

We can make a change through collective effort! 

RELATED STORIES AND SOURCES: 

(via slaymonsters)


1 hour ago 406
immigration, usa,

thehpalliance:

If you use YouTube, you need to know this.

You’ve heard all these rumblings about Net Neutrality over the past several months. Let’s get real: this is about controlling online video. It is estimated that by 2017, video content will account for 80-90% of all global Internet traffic.

This isn’t just about not being able to binge-watch a series on Netflix. It’s about the future of online video as we know it.

Whether your YouTube channel is home to daily vlogs, short films, or just that one video from when the cinnamon challenge seemed like a good idea, you’re a video creator. Your content and comments help shape this community. Let’s keep it that way.

Net Neutrality means that your YouTube videos reach people at the same speed as clips from last night’s episode of the Tonight Show. It means a level playing field for video creators looking to reach an audience. But new Net Neutrality rules could mess that up.

Here’s the deal: Telecommunications companies already charge us to access the Internet through our homes and our phones. New FCC rules could allow them to also charge content providers (like YouTube, Netflix, and even PBS) for access to our eyeballs. It could create a fast lane for Jimmy Fallon’s clips, and slow lane for your YouTube videos.

It is really important that the FCC understands that online video creators care about Net Neutrality. Even if you’ve only ever uploaded ONE VIDEO, you are a creator and you have a voice.

If you can, please add your channel to our petition. We’ll deliver this to the FCC in September and demonstrate that the online video community cares about this issue.

Sign the petition, then spread the word.

(via lotolle)


1 hour ago 29041

childrenmilk:

I thought I’d make a post summarizing Taylor Swifts video “Shake It Off” for the people who don’t want to give her more hate views on VEVO. Maybe instead of giving her 4,000 angry views on youtube we can just give her my one view and reblog this hella so no one else watches it out of irritable curiosity? 

Anyways the video is basically just her dancing singing an anthem that every White person appropriating another culture says, “The haters gonna hate.” There’s no real content or plot to the video, just a lot of dance shots where she’s being really awkward. It’s actually amazing how someone could really pretend to be so innocent and naive yet still convey a very harmful message.

Above I posted some screen caps of the video and after only watching it once I got all I needed to know.  Already from the beginning of the video you see a hard clash between the dancers. There are the prima ballerina types who are all white women, elegantly leaping and stretching and dancing. Then there are the faceless black women who are shaking their asses. Yes, faceless, literally every shot of the “twerkers” are only their asses. There’s also other groups of dancers which include some break dancers (which are all brown men,) and contemporary dancers (which is a group of white people and one girl with an afro.) Oh, yes, I forgot the cheerleading group which was all white cheerleaders and one black girl in the back. I just find it hard to believe that they couldn’t have a solid mixed group of people in each category. She pulled a Miley and Iggy and probably said something like “Well I want a more urban feel! But keep the safe ballerinas white!!” Literally the only group that had a saturation of black women was the twerking group. She even had them squat and shake their asses while she crawled through their legs! So edgy! So urban!

This is the problem I have with Taylor Swift. She’s always trying to convey herself as the innocent one who is “man worthy” (as if being man worthy is even important) while slut shaming other women for being sexual, or even just dressing in “short skirts” and “high heels.” All of the sudden now she wants to say, “To hell with the haters I can have as many problematic exes as I want! Now I’m going to be single and edgy! I’m going to shake it off! And to be single and edgy and sexual I have to dance with a bunch of ass shaking black women!  USE A BUNCH OF BLACK WOMEN AS PROPS

Long story story, Taylor Swift is not only a slut shaming misogynist, she’s ignorant and has obviously racist/stereotypical views of brown and black people. 

(via yellowis4happy)


1 hour ago 24088
racism, anti-blackness, taylor swift,