🔥 | Latest

Tumblr, Avatar, and Blog: avatar-chang: SOMEONE TAGGED ME IN THIS AND I-
Tumblr, Avatar, and Blog: avatar-chang:
SOMEONE TAGGED ME IN THIS AND I-

avatar-chang: SOMEONE TAGGED ME IN THIS AND I-

Being Alone, Amazon, and Bad: CW CNN @CNN Follow European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed the global climate, researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1C 8:00 PM -2 Feb 2019 924 Retweets 1,321 Likes SULLDHONHS Sophia Chang Follow @sophchang "European settlers killed 56 million indigenous people over about 100 years..." 56 million. It took a long time for me to process that figure CNN @CNN European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed the global climate, researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1c 9:45 AM -3 Feb 2019 1,872 Retweets 2,388 Likes Follow @RadRoopa Replying to @sophchang And to think, the world population in 1900 was only 1.5 billion compared to today's 7.5 billion I don't know what the world pop was like in 1500 but 56 millions would've been a HUGE percentage of that. That astronomical number is definitely hard to process 9:25 PM - 3 Feb 2019 Follow @RadRoopa Replying to @RadRoopa @sophchang I just looked it up and the world pop in 1600 was about 570 million. They wiped out TEN PERCENT of the world's population. That's the equivalent of 750 million ppl today. Whoa 9:50 PM - 3 Feb 2019 evergreennightmare: red-stick-progressive: aossidhboyee: red-stick-progressive: burdenbasket: gahdamnpunk: This is insane holy fuck, this is A LOT Also that figure is way too low, modern population estimates might be as much as twice that. There were between 25 and 40 million in central Mexico alone, almost as many people in the North Amazon, almost as many in the Andes, and almost as many in the American South. All saw 80 to 99 percent population loss in the period of 2 to 3 generations. The Greater Mississippi River Basin had a population somewhere between 5 and 12 million, the Eastern Woodlands had about as many, about as many in the Central Amazon, and almost as many on the American West Coast and North West Coast respectively. All of which saw 85 to 99 percent population losses in 2 or three generations after the others. Multiple factions if European interests killed all the natives they could and destroyed all the culture and history they could. They were not limited by gender, language, religion, culture, ethnic group, nationality, geography, or time period; just every single person they could. That’s not even genocide, it’s apocalypse. Why are you all omitting the well known fact that it was not purposeful genocide but simply new microbes introduced that no one knew about at that time. Cuz that’s not true. Tw genocide, tw violence When Columbus realized the pigs they brought were getting the Islanders sick he arranged to loose as many as possible ahead of them primarily into the Benne region, I believe. Cortez loaded sickened corpses into Tenochtitlan’s aqueducts, Spain deliberately targeted the priests of Mexican society first because they knew it would severely undermine the public ability to treat disease. When the post Incan city states developed a treatment for malaria, the Spanish deliberately targeted the cities producing the quinine treatment and made it illegal to sell it to non-christians. The Spanish took all the sick and forced them at sword-point to go back to their homes instead of to the sick houses or the temples throughout the new world, and forced anyone who wasn’t sick to work in the mines or the coin factories melting and pressing their cultural treasures down into Spanish coins. The English were just as bad, they started the smallpox blankets. A lot of the loss was not deliberate infections like this but it was preventable at a million different crossroads and every European culture took the opportunity to weaponize the plagues when they could. They knew what they were doing, just cuz they didn’t know what germs were doesn’t mean they have some accidental relationship with it. Alexander the great used biological warfare after all, so it’s not like you can pretend the concept was alien to them, they wrote about it. Besides they did plenty of old fashioned killing too, there were Spanish conquistadors that estimated their own personal, individual killings might have numbered over the ten thousands. They were sure they’d killed more than ten million in “New Spain” alone. They crucified people they smashed babies on the rocks, they set fire to buildings they forced women and children into and cooked their meals over the burning corpses, they loosed war dogs on people. They sold children into sex slavery to be raped by disease riddled pedos back in Europe and if taking their virginity didn’t cure the sick creeps the native children would be killed or sometimes sent back. The English were just as bad, shooting children in front of their mothers and forcing them to mop their blood with their hair. Turning human scalps into currency. Feeding babies to dogs in front of their mothers and fathers. Killing whole villages and erasing them from their maps so that historians would think God had made it empty just for the English. The Americans after them burned crops and drove several species of bison to extinction just to starve the plains tribes. They pushed the blankets too. On top of the wars of extermination and scalp hunting and concentration and laws defining natives as non-persons so that we’d never be protected by the Constitution. And even if you wanna live in some dreamy fairytale where God just made a whoopsie and then there were no natives left, nobody forced them to erase our history. The Spanish burned every document they found to erase the literacy and literary tradition of the Central and South Americans. There are essentially three Aztec documents left and some excavated pottery, and some archeological inscriptions and that’s it. The single most advanced culture in math and anatomical medicine erased probably forever. Same to the Inca, the most advanced fiber and alloy engineers and economists gone forever. Nobody made them do that. Nobody forced the American colonizers to steal political technology and act like they invented democracy or sovereignty. Nobody forced them to build their cities on top of native ones and erase them from history forever. Baltimore was built on Chesapeake, which translates roughly to “city at the top of the great water” in most Algonquin tongues. My favorite example is Cumberland in Western MD, they didn’t even reshape the roads or anything, they paved the steps and walking paths natives had used for hundreds of years and now it’s almost impossible to drive cuz the streets are too narrow or steep. The culture that built them didn’t have horses. Phoenix AZ, called Phoenix cuz the settlers literally found an old city and “brought it back to life.” Did they save any history or cultural artifacts? No. Most cities on the east coast are like this. Nobody forced them to erase that history. Colonizers are not innocent just cuz the germs did a lot of the work of the apocalypse. (tlaxcallān had a democratic form of government)
Being Alone, Amazon, and Bad: CW CNN
 @CNN
 Follow
 European colonizers killed so many Native
 Americans that it changed the global climate,
 researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1C
 8:00 PM -2 Feb 2019
 924 Retweets 1,321 Likes
 SULLDHONHS

 Sophia Chang
 Follow
 @sophchang
 "European settlers killed 56 million
 indigenous people over about 100 years..." 56
 million. It took a long time for me to process
 that figure
 CNN
 @CNN
 European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed
 the global climate, researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1c
 9:45 AM -3 Feb 2019
 1,872 Retweets 2,388 Likes

 Follow
 @RadRoopa
 Replying to @sophchang
 And to think, the world population in 1900
 was only 1.5 billion compared to today's 7.5
 billion
 I don't know what the world pop was like in
 1500 but 56 millions would've been a HUGE
 percentage of that.
 That astronomical number is definitely hard
 to process
 9:25 PM - 3 Feb 2019

 Follow
 @RadRoopa
 Replying to @RadRoopa @sophchang
 I just looked it up and the world pop in 1600
 was about 570 million.
 They wiped out TEN PERCENT of the world's
 population.
 That's the equivalent of 750 million ppl today.
 Whoa
 9:50 PM - 3 Feb 2019
evergreennightmare:
red-stick-progressive:

aossidhboyee:


red-stick-progressive:

burdenbasket:


gahdamnpunk:
This is insane
holy fuck, this is A LOT


Also that figure is way too low, modern population estimates might be as much as twice that. There were between 25 and 40 million in central Mexico alone, almost as many people in the North Amazon, almost as many in the Andes, and almost as many in the American South. All saw 80 to 99 percent population loss in the period of 2 to 3 generations. 
The Greater Mississippi River Basin had a population somewhere between 5 and 12 million, the Eastern Woodlands had about as many, about as many in the Central Amazon, and almost as many on the American West Coast and North West Coast respectively. All of which saw 85 to 99 percent population losses in 2 or three generations after the others.
Multiple factions if European interests killed all the natives they could and destroyed all the culture and history they could. They were not limited by gender, language, religion, culture, ethnic group, nationality, geography, or time period; just every single person they could. 
That’s not even genocide, it’s apocalypse.


Why are you all omitting the well known fact that it was not purposeful genocide but simply new microbes introduced that no one knew about at that time.


Cuz that’s not true. 
Tw genocide, tw violence
When Columbus realized the pigs they brought were getting the Islanders sick he arranged to loose as many as possible ahead of them primarily into the Benne region, I believe. Cortez loaded sickened corpses into Tenochtitlan’s aqueducts, Spain deliberately targeted the priests of Mexican society first because they knew it would severely undermine the public ability to treat disease. When the post Incan city states developed a treatment for malaria, the Spanish deliberately targeted the cities producing the quinine treatment and made it illegal to sell it to non-christians. The Spanish took all the sick and forced them at sword-point to go back to their homes instead of to the sick houses or the temples throughout the new world, and forced anyone who wasn’t sick to work in the mines or the coin factories melting and pressing their cultural treasures down into Spanish coins. The English were just as bad, they started the smallpox blankets. A lot of the loss was not deliberate infections like this but it was preventable at a million different crossroads and every European culture took the opportunity to weaponize the plagues when they could. 
They knew what they were doing, just cuz they didn’t know what germs were doesn’t mean they have some accidental relationship with it. Alexander the great used biological warfare after all, so it’s not like you can pretend the concept was alien to them, they wrote about it.
Besides they did plenty of old fashioned killing too, there were Spanish conquistadors that estimated their own personal, individual killings might have numbered over the ten thousands. They were sure they’d killed more than ten million in “New Spain” alone. They crucified people they smashed babies on the rocks, they set fire to buildings they forced women and children into and cooked their meals over the burning corpses, they loosed war dogs on people. They sold children into sex slavery to be raped by disease riddled pedos back in Europe and if taking their virginity didn’t cure the sick creeps the native children would be killed or sometimes sent back.
The English were just as bad, shooting children in front of their mothers and forcing them to mop their blood with their hair. Turning human scalps into currency. Feeding babies to dogs in front of their mothers and fathers. Killing whole villages and erasing them from their maps so that historians would think God had made it empty just for the English. 
The Americans after them burned crops and drove several species of bison to extinction just to starve the plains tribes. They pushed the blankets too. On top of the wars of extermination and scalp hunting and concentration and laws defining natives as non-persons so that we’d never be protected by the Constitution.
And even if you wanna live in some dreamy fairytale where God just made a whoopsie and then there were no natives left, nobody forced them to erase our history. The Spanish burned every document they found to erase the literacy and literary tradition of the Central and South Americans. There are essentially three Aztec documents left and some excavated pottery, and some archeological inscriptions and that’s it. The single most advanced culture in math and anatomical medicine erased probably forever. Same to the Inca, the most advanced fiber and alloy engineers and economists gone forever. Nobody made them do that. Nobody forced the American colonizers to steal political technology and act like they invented democracy or sovereignty. Nobody forced them to build their cities on top of native ones and erase them from history forever. Baltimore was built on Chesapeake, which translates roughly to “city at the top of the great water” in most Algonquin tongues. My favorite example is Cumberland in Western MD, they didn’t even reshape the roads or anything, they paved the steps and walking paths natives had used for hundreds of years and now it’s almost impossible to drive cuz the streets are too narrow or steep. The culture that built them didn’t have horses. Phoenix AZ, called Phoenix cuz the settlers literally found an old city and “brought it back to life.” Did they save any history or cultural artifacts? No. Most cities on the east coast are like this. Nobody forced them to erase that history.
Colonizers are not innocent just cuz the germs did a lot of the work of the apocalypse.

(tlaxcallān had a democratic form of government)

evergreennightmare: red-stick-progressive: aossidhboyee: red-stick-progressive: burdenbasket: gahdamnpunk: This is insane holy fuck, t...

Bank, Singles, and Wimbledon: bank fo Ja chang Boris Becker becomes the youngest winner of the Mens Singles event at Wimbledon (1985)
Bank, Singles, and Wimbledon: bank fo Ja chang
Boris Becker becomes the youngest winner of the Mens Singles event at Wimbledon (1985)

Boris Becker becomes the youngest winner of the Mens Singles event at Wimbledon (1985)

Apparently, Asian, and Bitch: Detroit Rep. Bettie Cook Scott orn Asian opponent: Don't vote for the ching-chong! by Violet lkonomova August 16, 2018 at 11:09 AM comment v bizarre-transmission: thettasigma: ferventfox: awesome-everyday: internetdumpsterfires: Black people can’t be racist. Ugh, okay. The remark by this black woman was disrespectful and based on race. It was rude, bigoted and uncalled for. But no, in an anti black world, black people do not have the social, political or systemic financial power to be racist. Racism implies that beyond hurting and insulting that asian woman that this black woman is connected to a system that has the power to negatively impact this woman’s existence. That dark skinned black woman who’s an incumbent running for state office likely has about the same amount of systemic power as i do. And furthermore, there could be an argument made that deteoit is chocolate city and perhaps she does have that infrastructure of black networks to truly effect her opponent, but idk I was in Detroit last year and it looks a lot like Brooklyn does now. White and gentrified. White people with money, who control our political systems, finances, and predominant social narratives are claiming urban space like they’re colonizing pioneers looking to take the new world. Detroit isn’t the same anymore. Anyway, black people can be shitty insensitive bigots but we do not have the social capital to be racist, particularly not in the united states. “That dark skinned black woman who’s an incumbent running for state office likely has about the same amount of systemic power as i do.”  Ahahaha: No. A congressperson is the definition of systemic power. You can’t bitch about lack of political power when we are talking about elected politician.  Clearly the world isn’t so anti-black that it couldn’t vote her in.  Chang is also a first generation American, while Scott, to my knowledge, is not, and she specifically made anti-immigrant comments. She also has “power” within the context of her own ethnic community and she used that power to direct racism towards other African-Americans who supported Chang by implying they were somehow traitors, essentially dictating how they ought to act based on their race, particularly Chang’s husband for his interracial marriage (I don’t give a flying fuck what race you are, negative comments about interracial marriage and mixed race people are racist. period. end of story).  Even if I did accept the prejudice + power model or racism (which I don’t as that is neither the etymology or common usage of the word) Cook’s comments would certainly fit the bill. She made race based attacks on people based on types of marginalization that she is exempt from; and did so from a position of power partially gained by the fact that she is exempt from these types of discrimination.   It’s racist. Stop making excuses.  “That dark skinned woman who’s an incumbent running for office likely has about the same amount of systematic power as I do.” Is this person on drugs? They’re claiming that… A political person… A congresswoman… Has no power in the country in which she was elected… By the populace… As a politician. That, or they’re a politician too. Apparently we can say anything now and it makes sense. Huh. Also these remarks are the absolute epitomy of racism and if anyone refuses to see it, they’re not purely misinformed. They are delusional. *literally calls an Asian person ching chong*“How dare you say I’m being racist??” Thank you for attending today’s lecture on cognitive dissonance.
Apparently, Asian, and Bitch: Detroit Rep. Bettie
 Cook Scott orn
 Asian opponent:
 Don't vote for the
 ching-chong!
 by Violet lkonomova August 16, 2018 at 11:09 AM
 comment v
bizarre-transmission:

thettasigma:
ferventfox:

awesome-everyday:

internetdumpsterfires:
Black people can’t be racist.

Ugh, okay. The remark by this black woman was disrespectful and based on race. It was rude, bigoted and uncalled for.
But no, in an anti black world, black people do not have the social, political or systemic financial power to be racist. Racism implies that beyond hurting and insulting that asian woman that this black woman is connected to a system that has the power to negatively impact this woman’s existence. That dark skinned black woman who’s an incumbent running for state office likely has about the same amount of systemic power as i do.
And furthermore, there could be an argument made that deteoit is chocolate city and perhaps she does have that infrastructure of black networks to truly effect her opponent, but idk I was in Detroit last year and it looks a lot like Brooklyn does now. White and gentrified. White people with money, who control our political systems, finances, and predominant social narratives are claiming urban space like they’re colonizing pioneers looking to take the new world. Detroit isn’t the same anymore.
Anyway, black people can be shitty insensitive bigots but we do not have the social capital to be racist, particularly not in the united states.

“That dark skinned black woman who’s an incumbent running for state office likely has about the same amount of systemic power as i do.” 
Ahahaha: No. A congressperson is the definition of systemic power. You can’t bitch about lack of political power when we are talking about elected politician.  Clearly the world isn’t so anti-black that it couldn’t vote her in. 
Chang is also a first generation American, while Scott, to my knowledge, is not, and she specifically made anti-immigrant comments. She also has “power” within the context of her own ethnic community and she used that power to direct racism towards other African-Americans who supported Chang by implying they were somehow traitors, essentially dictating how they ought to act based on their race, particularly Chang’s husband for his interracial marriage (I don’t give a flying fuck what race you are, negative comments about interracial marriage and mixed race people are racist. period. end of story). 
Even if I did accept the prejudice + power model or racism (which I don’t as that is neither the etymology or common usage of the word) Cook’s comments would certainly fit the bill. She made race based attacks on people based on types of marginalization that she is exempt from; and did so from a position of power partially gained by the fact that she is exempt from these types of discrimination.   It’s racist. Stop making excuses. 


“That dark skinned woman who’s an incumbent running for office likely has about the same amount of systematic power as I do.”
Is this person on drugs? They’re claiming that… A political person… A congresswoman… Has no power in the country in which she was elected… By the populace… As a politician. That, or they’re a politician too. 
Apparently we can say anything now and it makes sense. Huh.
Also these remarks are the absolute epitomy of racism and if anyone refuses to see it, they’re not purely misinformed. They are delusional. 
*literally calls an Asian person ching chong*“How dare you say I’m being racist??” 

Thank you for attending today’s lecture on cognitive dissonance.

bizarre-transmission: thettasigma: ferventfox: awesome-everyday: internetdumpsterfires: Black people can’t be racist. Ugh, okay. The rem...

Facebook, Target, and Tumblr: sailorfailures: Uranus: AmbrosiaNeptune: TessPhotography by Tiffany Chang
Facebook, Target, and Tumblr: sailorfailures:


Uranus: AmbrosiaNeptune: TessPhotography by Tiffany Chang

sailorfailures: Uranus: AmbrosiaNeptune: TessPhotography by Tiffany Chang