sweetheartpleasestay:

gang0fwolves:

recoveringfrommyconvictions:

iguessilltryitout:

liberscarian:

darkhairedgirlfromgallifrey:

uncommonone:

rtrixie:

fake-tumlbr:

nah, they portray her as white because she was white. 

Next they’ll demand history books to be re-written in order to not be racist.
Wait, I think they’re already doing that.

Cleopatra was part of the Ptolemaic dynasty, who were Macedonian Greeks who served Alexander the Great before his death. Because they followed the Egyptian custom of marrying siblings they had little to no actual Egyptian blood in them. Thus having an actual Egyptian woman portray Cleopatra would be historically incorrect.

exactly^

I laugh at people who don’t know Cleopatra technically wasn’t even Egyptian.

People believe what coincides with their opinions.

I knew she was white but I didn’t know she wasn’t actually Egyptian. Hmmph. The more ya know



WHITE PEOPLE FOREVER PRETENDING THAT EVERYONE WHO IS CONSIDERED “WHITE” NOW WAS “WHITE” FOREVER AGO
Scientists find Cleopatra’s sister and possibly her mom probably were Black African women

Cleopatra’s mom probably was African—black sub-Saharan African on her mother’s side if she and her sister Arsinoe had the same mothers. They shared the same Greek/Macedonian father. Check out the article, BBC NEWS | Also in the news | Cleopatra’s mother ‘was African’. See the uTube video, Cleopatra’s sister Arsinoe had African ancestry - YouTube. Egyptians and Nubians in ancient times had been marrying one another, say most archaeologists.
The only problem is scientists found Cleopatra’s sister having African features, but don’t know whether the two sisters had the same mother. Cleopatra also had two brothers. And the scientists conclusion is based on African skull shape from drawings of a skeleton found in a tomb in Ephesus, Turkey assumed to hold the bones of Cleopatra’s teenage sister, Arsinoe.

I mean it’s not like the damn Egyptians painted her as being a brown-skinned woman or anything

sweetheartpleasestay:

gang0fwolves:

recoveringfrommyconvictions:

iguessilltryitout:

liberscarian:

darkhairedgirlfromgallifrey:

uncommonone:

rtrixie:

fake-tumlbr:

nah, they portray her as white because she was white. 

Next they’ll demand history books to be re-written in order to not be racist.

Wait, I think they’re already doing that.

Cleopatra was part of the Ptolemaic dynasty, who were Macedonian Greeks who served Alexander the Great before his death. Because they followed the Egyptian custom of marrying siblings they had little to no actual Egyptian blood in them. Thus having an actual Egyptian woman portray Cleopatra would be historically incorrect.

exactly^

I laugh at people who don’t know Cleopatra technically wasn’t even Egyptian.

People believe what coincides with their opinions.

I knew she was white but I didn’t know she wasn’t actually Egyptian. Hmmph. The more ya know

WHITE PEOPLE FOREVER PRETENDING THAT EVERYONE WHO IS CONSIDERED “WHITE” NOW WAS “WHITE” FOREVER AGO

Scientists find Cleopatra’s sister and possibly her mom probably were Black African women

Cleopatra’s mom probably was African—black sub-Saharan African on her mother’s side if she and her sister Arsinoe had the same mothers. They shared the same Greek/Macedonian father. Check out the article, BBC NEWS | Also in the news | Cleopatra’s mother ‘was African’. See the uTube video, Cleopatra’s sister Arsinoe had African ancestry - YouTube. Egyptians and Nubians in ancient times had been marrying one another, say most archaeologists.

The only problem is scientists found Cleopatra’s sister having African features, but don’t know whether the two sisters had the same mother. Cleopatra also had two brothers. And the scientists conclusion is based on African skull shape from drawings of a skeleton found in a tomb in Ephesus, Turkey assumed to hold the bones of Cleopatra’s teenage sister, Arsinoe.

I mean it’s not like the damn Egyptians painted her as being a brown-skinned woman or anything

(Source: adeesparks, via inbetweenthelineart)

4,329 notes

kawaiibunny3:

Every Main Character Magical Girl

Dec. 1966- Aug. 2014

(via fyeahlilbit3point0)

10,127 notes

dynastylnoire:

-imaginarythoughts-:

hipsterlibertarian:

In July I shared a story of an incident in which my city’s police stormed a man’s house looking for drugs in the middle of the night and executed his two (understandably startled) dogs. One of the dogs was shot to death while fleeing in fear, and as I noted then, this isn’t an isolated incident. Just a few years ago, the Saint Paul Police killed another family dog…and forced handcuffed children to sit next to its bleeding corpse. The kicker? The raid wasn’t even in the right house!
Now, a new report has surfaced of SPPD brutality. This time, a young father named Chris Lollie was arrested while waiting to pick up his kids from school. The charges were “Trespassing, Disorderly Conduct, and Obstructing Legal Process,” and police claimed he refused to leave an area reserved for employees of the bank building he was in. However, not only were there no signs indicating that the location was private, but Lollie wasn’t even in the bank proper; he was in the skyway.
(For those who aren’t familiar with the skyway system, it’s a thing we have in St. Paul, Minneapolis, and some other Minnesota cities. Basically, it gets hella cold here in the winter, so they built enclosed sidewalks, or skyways, one or two stories up. In the downtown areas, the skyways form a whole second network of pedestrian roads, and once you get inside your office building—or whichever building is closest to your parking garage or bus stop or whatever—you can use them to move from building to building to get around the whole downtown area. It’s an easy way to go to lunch or meetings without having the snot in your nostrils freeze. I mention all that to say: Skyways are public spaces. You do not have to be an employee in the buildings they connect to use them. Lollie was not trespassing.)
Fortunately, Lollie had the presence of mind to capture his interaction with the SPPD on film. Here’s a transcript I’ve made of the first few seconds:

Lollie: So what’s your business with me right now?
Officer: I want to find out who you are, and what the problem was back there…
Lollie: There is no problem—that’s the thing.
Officer: So, talk to me, let me know, and you can be on your way.
Lollie: Let you know…why do I have to let you know who I am? Who I am isn’t the problem.
Officer: Because that’s what police do when they get called.
Lollie: Well, I know my rights, first off. Secondly, I don’t have to let you know who I am if I haven’t broken any laws. Like I told him, I’m going to New Horizons [School] to pick up my kids at 10 o’clock. I was sitting there for ten minutes…

As the officer brushes aside his explanation and continues to illegally demand he identify himself, Lollie cuts to the chase: “The problem is I’m black. That’s the problem. No, it really is, because I didn’t do anything wrong.”
Next, Lollie and the female officer he’s been walking and talking with meet a male officer. When Lollie politely asks the officer not to touch or obstruct him, because he has to go get his kids, the man immediately responds, “Well, you’re going to go to jail then.”
As the police initiate the arrest process—telling him to put his hand behind his back or “otherwise things are going to get ugly"—the camera visuals go black. Lollie continues to be heard pleading, still polite even while he’s assaulted, that he be allowed to go meet his children.
Next, they tase him.
If that’s not enough to convince you that this is gross police misconduct, seriously, take five minutes and watch the video. The calmness of his tone alone should make it obvious that there is no possible argument that the situation merited this kind of police action:

After multiple witnesses verified Lollie’s version of events, prosecutors dropped all charges against him. One woman who is also not an employee at the bank the skyway links noted that she regularly sits during her lunch break exactly where Lollie was sitting, but she has never been harassed by police. However, the SPPD continue to defend their actions.
At The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf points out how simple it would have been for police to resolve this situation without violence and an arrest had they cared to do so:

His story about getting his kids wasn’t merely plausible, given the man’s age and the fact that there was a school right there–it was a story the female police officer shown at the beginning of the video or the male officer shown later could easily confirm. 
Lollie is also absolutely correct that no law required him to show an ID to police officers. As Flex Your Rights explains, “Police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you’re involved in illegal activity,” and while 24 states have passed “stop and identify” statutes “requiring citizens to reveal their identity when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place,” Minnesota isn’t one of those states.

The female officer shown in the beginning of the video could easily have de-escalated the encounter by saying, “You’re right, sir, you have every right to refuse to show me identification, and if you’re just picking up your kids I’m so sorry to have bothered you. If you don’t mind, I just want to walk with you to confirm that your story checks out so I can inform the 911 caller of their error. That way we can make sure this never happens again when you’re just here to pick up your kids.”
Or she could’ve said, “Sir, I totally see why this is confusing–a lot of people would think so. Let me try to explain. That totally looks like a public seating area, but it’s actually private. Don’t you think they should have a sign saying so? Calling me may seem like an overreaction, but technically they can ask you to leave. You’re walking away now, so there’s actually no problem as long as you’re not going to go back. Are you? Okay, then we have no problem, have a wonderful day.”  

As Lollie is carried away post-tasing, he can be heard challenging the officers’ “legal” assault: "Who are you? You don’t rule me. I didn’t do anything wrong. I didn’t hurt anybody. I didn’t touch anybody." 
If only the SPPD could honestly say the same.

That video that was being passed around yesterday

boooooooooooooooooooooost

dynastylnoire:

-imaginarythoughts-:

hipsterlibertarian:

In July I shared a story of an incident in which my city’s police stormed a man’s house looking for drugs in the middle of the night and executed his two (understandably startled) dogs. One of the dogs was shot to death while fleeing in fear, and as I noted then, this isn’t an isolated incident. Just a few years ago, the Saint Paul Police killed another family dog…and forced handcuffed children to sit next to its bleeding corpse. The kicker? The raid wasn’t even in the right house!

Now, a new report has surfaced of SPPD brutality. This time, a young father named Chris Lollie was arrested while waiting to pick up his kids from school. The charges wereTrespassing, Disorderly Conduct, and Obstructing Legal Process,” and police claimed he refused to leave an area reserved for employees of the bank building he was in. However, not only were there no signs indicating that the location was private, but Lollie wasn’t even in the bank proper; he was in the skyway.

(For those who aren’t familiar with the skyway system, it’s a thing we have in St. Paul, Minneapolis, and some other Minnesota cities. Basically, it gets hella cold here in the winter, so they built enclosed sidewalks, or skyways, one or two stories up. In the downtown areas, the skyways form a whole second network of pedestrian roads, and once you get inside your office building—or whichever building is closest to your parking garage or bus stop or whatever—you can use them to move from building to building to get around the whole downtown area. It’s an easy way to go to lunch or meetings without having the snot in your nostrils freeze. I mention all that to say: Skyways are public spaces. You do not have to be an employee in the buildings they connect to use them. Lollie was not trespassing.)

Fortunately, Lollie had the presence of mind to capture his interaction with the SPPD on film. Here’s a transcript I’ve made of the first few seconds:

Lollie: So what’s your business with me right now?

Officer: I want to find out who you are, and what the problem was back there…

Lollie: There is no problem—that’s the thing.

Officer: So, talk to me, let me know, and you can be on your way.

Lollie: Let you know…why do I have to let you know who I am? Who I am isn’t the problem.

Officer: Because that’s what police do when they get called.

Lollie: Well, I know my rights, first off. Secondly, I don’t have to let you know who I am if I haven’t broken any laws. Like I told him, I’m going to New Horizons [School] to pick up my kids at 10 o’clock. I was sitting there for ten minutes…

As the officer brushes aside his explanation and continues to illegally demand he identify himself, Lollie cuts to the chase: “The problem is I’m black. That’s the problem. No, it really is, because I didn’t do anything wrong.”

Next, Lollie and the female officer he’s been walking and talking with meet a male officer. When Lollie politely asks the officer not to touch or obstruct him, because he has to go get his kids, the man immediately responds, “Well, you’re going to go to jail then.”

As the police initiate the arrest process—telling him to put his hand behind his back or “otherwise things are going to get ugly"—the camera visuals go black. Lollie continues to be heard pleading, still polite even while he’s assaulted, that he be allowed to go meet his children.

Next, they tase him.

If that’s not enough to convince you that this is gross police misconduct, seriously, take five minutes and watch the video. The calmness of his tone alone should make it obvious that there is no possible argument that the situation merited this kind of police action:

After multiple witnesses verified Lollie’s version of events, prosecutors dropped all charges against him. One woman who is also not an employee at the bank the skyway links noted that she regularly sits during her lunch break exactly where Lollie was sitting, but she has never been harassed by police. However, the SPPD continue to defend their actions.

At The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf points out how simple it would have been for police to resolve this situation without violence and an arrest had they cared to do so:

His story about getting his kids wasn’t merely plausible, given the man’s age and the fact that there was a school right there–it was a story the female police officer shown at the beginning of the video or the male officer shown later could easily confirm. 

Lollie is also absolutely correct that no law required him to show an ID to police officers. As Flex Your Rights explains, “Police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you’re involved in illegal activity,” and while 24 states have passed “stop and identify” statutes “requiring citizens to reveal their identity when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place,” Minnesota isn’t one of those states.

The female officer shown in the beginning of the video could easily have de-escalated the encounter by saying, “You’re right, sir, you have every right to refuse to show me identification, and if you’re just picking up your kids I’m so sorry to have bothered you. If you don’t mind, I just want to walk with you to confirm that your story checks out so I can inform the 911 caller of their error. That way we can make sure this never happens again when you’re just here to pick up your kids.”

Or she could’ve said, “Sir, I totally see why this is confusing–a lot of people would think so. Let me try to explain. That totally looks like a public seating area, but it’s actually private. Don’t you think they should have a sign saying so? Calling me may seem like an overreaction, but technically they can ask you to leave. You’re walking away now, so there’s actually no problem as long as you’re not going to go back. Are you? Okay, then we have no problem, have a wonderful day.”  

As Lollie is carried away post-tasing, he can be heard challenging the officers’ “legal” assault: "Who are you? You don’t rule me. I didn’t do anything wrong. I didn’t hurt anybody. I didn’t touch anybody."

If only the SPPD could honestly say the same.

That video that was being passed around yesterday

boooooooooooooooooooooost

(via inbetweenthelineart)

22,468 notes

mintyburps:

I’m trying to speed up the time it takes for me to finish digitally, aka holding back on all those overlays :’D.

(via dinkerton)

3,617 notes

atane:

The above are the first 3 responses to Dr. Redmond’s spot on tweet. This is the boorish behavior that Black people have to deal with from white people for merely speaking out against white supremacy. The harassment from white people towards Black people is constant and virulent. If you’re a Black person speaking out against white supremacy, white people will attack you or at the very least, they will have a major problem with you. They will attack you more than a “good” white person saying the exact same thing. Tim Wise does not put up with an inkling of the abuse Black people endure and he isn’t saying anything new. Discourse about white supremacy from a white mouth is more palatable to the white masses than from the mouths of those victimized by white supremacy.

Ironically, the “good” white people become like the rest of their white brethren when they attempt to separate themselves by saying “not all white people”. They too become a nuisance that everlastingly badgers. They are largely silent about injustice, inequity and marginalization at the hands of white supremacy. However, the minute the marginalized speak out against their abusers, they are quick to lend a voice in defense of the abusers. It’s because even when white people are clearly abusers, other white people still see their humanity. In the face of this abuse, merely pointing out that the perpetrators of the abuse are white angers white people. The abuse itself doesn’t elicit the same level of anger from them.

Another problem are these alleged white liberals. Truth be told, I get more harassment from white liberals than from anyone else. White conservatives don’t hide their disdain for Blackness. For them, it’s a badge of honor. We know where they stand. White liberals in contrast tend to be silent, but will speak up to center themselves in a crisis or will be apologetic towards white abusers, instead of condemning them. Many will not acknowledge that white supremacy even exists. If they do acknowledge a problem, they will wrap it up in empty platitudes about everyone needing to get along, how they don’t see race, how we’re all human, how they have Black friends or whatever post-racial nonsense they ascribe to, as if that addresses white supremacy. They believe that the problem “goes both ways”.

If the above isn’t you as a white person, do not take this as your cue to respond with “not all white people”. As the saying goes, the hit dog will holler. If something does not apply to you, then why are you hollering? Did I hit you? Maybe I did. The only thing many white people can bring themselves to say in response to Black suffering and white supremacy is “not all white people” or "this is reverse racism" or their favorite chopped up MLK Jr. quote “hate cannot drive out hate”. The response from white people is never a unanimous “the system of white supremacy is a scourge that must end and we must fight to end it”. It is never that.

Whiteness will always justify the extermination of Blackness. Mike Brown was gunned down in Ferguson by officer Darren Wilson and the Ferguson police in turn releases video stills of what they claim to be Brown being an alleged criminal days after his murder. This was completely unrelated to his murder, but there is always a reason for dead Black bodies when whiteness governs. So why did they release these stills if the Ferguson police themselves have admitted that it is completely unrelated to Brown’s murder at the hands of officer Darren Wilson? They did it to smear his image. This is a tactic of white supremacy. It always smears the image of a Black victim.

When Black people are victimized and dehumanized, they still aren’t quite human in the eyes of many white people. At least not on the level of white humanity. It’s why a white terrorist like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev can be put on the cover of Rolling Stone, like he’s a heartthrob in a boy band, and be described as “popular and promising”, while unarmed Black people murdered by white people are criminalized in death. Their image gets smeared because full victimhood is relegated to whiteness. Innocence and chasteness will be awarded to a white murderer before a Black murder victim.

I don’t argue or engage with white people on this subject anymore. This Malcolm X quote is forever relevant. I’ll respond or say my piece if need be, but I won’t debate a white person about Black humanity. My response to “good” white folks will always be “go and get your people”. That’s all I have to say to them. Truly good white people don’t need to be told that. They know. Word to John Brown.

(via writingfail)

13,265 notes

gemmacorrell:

(via Four Eyes Comic Strip on GoComics.com)

gemmacorrell:

(via Four Eyes Comic Strip on GoComics.com)

(via macy-bee)

15,487 notes

my-h-e-a-r-t-s-not-in-it:

hey sorry im late i didnt want to come

(via amazonpoodle)

377,353 notes

limbospecs:

i was bored and then these happened

202 notes

short-and-artsy:

sometimes they switch

short-and-artsy:

sometimes they switch

663 notes

marle-thj:

8^)))))

marle-thj:

8^)))))

165 notes


“Is someone different at age 18 or 60? I believe one stays the same.” 
- Hayao Miyazaki

“Is someone different at age 18 or 60? I believe one stays the same.” 

- Hayao Miyazaki

(Source: asianflicks, via pachiriscu)

3,833 notes

theverylostprincess:

daisyinaglass:

I CAN NOT GET OVER THIS

how does 6 seconds have such a drastic plot twist

(Source: vinegod, via pachiriscu)

184,514 notes

“Men still have trouble recognizing that a woman can be complex, can have ambition, good looks, sexuality, erudition, and common sense. A woman can have all those facets, and yet men, in literature and in drama, seem to need to simplify women, to polarize us as either the whore or the angel.”

(Source: ggrint, via janesfoster)

4,715 notes

actuallygodzilla:

everything happens so much 

534 notes

la-senorita-de-la-casa:

wifigirl2080:

maleeshda3wa:

yayasmeen:

I think my selfie problem is getting out of hand..

This deserves at least a thousand notes !!

Icon

Wonderful! Every.Single.One! 

(via amazonpoodle)

279,458 notes