for each age is a dream that is dying,

or one that is coming to birth

680 notes

I am circling around God, around the ancient tower, and I have been circling for a thousand years, and I still don’t know if I am a falcon, or a storm, or a great song.

Rainer Maria Rilke  (via fernsandmoss)

Ich kreise um Gott, um den uralten Turm,
und ich kreise jahrtausendelang,
und ich weiß noch nicht, bin ich ein Falke, ein Sturm,
oder ein großer Gesang.

My favourite lines of Rilke, yes.

(via jesuit-space-pirate)

(via jesuit-space-pirate)

Filed under poetry rainer maria rilke

3,269 notes

spatscolombo:

Basically I will reblog anything that parallels TOS and movieverse because AGING IS BY ITS VERY NATURE POETIC and we hardly ever get to see it in on-screen fiction because of the stupid logistics of having to wait around for actors to a) get old and b) somehow not lose interest in playing the same characters forever and ever. YES I AM SAYING THAT STAR TREK IS UNIQUE AND PERFECT

(Source: trekgate)

Filed under star trek

6,556 notes

cephiedvariable:

desidere:

MedievalPOC is scamming you, here’s how and why: 

  1. For all that MedievalPOC railed against how “awful” periodization in this reblog, what they mostly did was prove they have ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT PERIODIZATION IS OR HOW IT WORKS. 

    Which is okay! Not everyone does. But if you’re a history blog, trying to pass off Italian Baroque Art from the 1670’s as from the Georgian period is flat out wrong on every humanly possible level. How do I know it’s not Georgian, but Italian Baroque? Well, MPOC actually directly linked folks back to the original works and then bet NO ONE would check their facts

    Talk about incriminating receipts, right? It’s a mistake anyone could make….except this is a history blog, and it’s not an easy mistake to make when you’re in the wrong CENTURY. The last photo is my accurate to period examples that i found quickly.  

    Periodization, by the way:  an act or instance of dividing a subject into historical eras for purposes of analysis and study. Periods are “named blocks of time” that can be geographically specific. They are often named for major historical events, famous people, or dates. Periods are useful for analyzing change, continuity, or advances over time. Examples: Meiji Japan, the Renaissance, the gilded age, the long 19th century, the 60’s.  


  2. So MPOC hates historiography because its fluid/changing, different from art history in many ways, and not always precise — and therefore wrong. Then proceeds to prove their point by suggesting that the United States experienced the Victorian Era. 

    Which, granted, the US did experience a multitude of influences from the “victorian era” but….it’s also no longer a part of the British empire in the 19th century. 
  3. MPOC is asking people to pay them…..to break the law and/or do things that you can literally do yourself, for free or are already available for a price. IE: selling art prints of POC in art owned by different resources (museums, galleries, private owners, etc) is actually really illegal and against copyright. It’s technically illegal to put these images online without permissions anyways, but you don’t make a profit off of selling the art that isn’t owned by you when you do it. Interested in prints? Well you can either print off the image yourself for free,  or buy them from the actual museums and galleries themselves, furthering the support of the actual items! When you buy prints or postcards of art DIRECTLY from museums, you are funding museums. the money they get from giftshops is actually VERY IMPORTANT because museums and databases like the ones MPOC use are NON-PROFIT organizations AND this money will go to funding the museum, be that for outreach to children, conserving the art, paying their staff, publishing free educational materials, etc. It is an absolutely vital source of income for museums that serve their communities and want to keep their art accessible. 

    There are a few collections which are free for reproduction commercially, like the National Gallery of Art but this isn’t the norm across the board. Besides that? Well I realize buying a $95 art book may be out of the range for some people’s pockets (TRUST ME: having been someone required to buy a lot of these textbooks which are pricey because of the vast amount of copyright fees paid to publish them), there are cheaper or used similar books on amazon AND several museums and universities have published some of their older books online for FREE. Which includes The Met. Why are you going to pay someone else to read books for you when they don’t even give you the facts right?? 
  4. they want $1,200 a month to make lesson plans and curricula about art and art history but can’t even differentiate between two separate countries in two different time periods. This isn’t “one mistake” I found. This is systematically getting things wrong, including the time they claimed that Queen Urraca of Spain might possibly be Muslim — despite the fact that Queen Urraca of Spain spent her career helping and advocating the Reconquista - AKA the murder of muslim people in Spain. Uhhhh…

    Which of course: These lesson plans? Stuff like this already exists! By (surprise) Museum educators whose JOB it is full time to make this stuff. It’s almost like this stuff is ALREADY free online [The Met, The Getty, Asian Art Museum… pretty much any major museum on the planet….] AND THIS STUFF IS AVAILABLE AND READY TO BE USED. A LOT OF IT IS FREE. How do I know this magical stuff??? because (and I’m guessing here) UNLIKE MPOC I have actually taken a class on museum education. 
  5. MPOC is offering to write a book. a really real published book. SPOILER ALERT: in the art history world, you GENERALLY have a PhD before you publish a book. Why? Because the PhD certifies you as an expert in the thing you study and it is an academic topic. No university/academic publisher alive would risk this. Is it maybe an ivory tower elitist thing? hell yeah it is. Would any editor in their right mind publish a book as riddled with basic factual errors as much as the MPOC blog? Hell no they would not. What about those publishers who publish psuedo-historical books like “PS ‘everything was made by aliens’” ? Well unless they want their asses sued to hell and back over copyrights, they probably won’t be able to foot the necessary bills for these images. Independent publishing doesn’t make any of it LESS illegal. They want to cover the license costs with crowd funding???  

    GREAT EXCEPT: 

    According to Linda Downs, executive director of the College Art Association, image permissions and licensing costs for a 200-page art-history book average $7,000 to $10,000. Authors usually have to cover those costs themselves. Scholars in disciplines that aren’t so visual might jump at the chance to publish in both print and online formats, Ms. Downs told me in an e-mail. But “art historians will choose one or the other” because they might get hit with two sets of permissions fees and other restrictions. Good luck with that. In order to recoup those kinds of costs the books will NOT be cheap. 
  6. MPOC has been called out by several NDN bloggers regarding the fact that they have been caught lying about their Native/POC heritage. Although the days of stupid_free and fandom_wank have long past, now we have other ways to collect receipts and here AND ALSO HERE REALLY IMPORTANT and know that they are white, white, white — and lied about who they were. Like here’s a hint there are NO Lakota reservations in AZ. If you really miss livejournal, however, you can see the call out on SF_DRAMAThe internet will never forget a white girl co-opting POC to garner cash.
  7. they also have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of how to treat  jewish people in europe in history. which is called out here better than I ever can or could because I am not jewish. they also fumble with the Roma (which they claim to be) and that + the judaism issue is also called out here
  8. don’t send this person harassment but don’t give them money holy shit y’all you are being scammed. SCAMMED. do not PAY people to feed you half-assed poor researched bullshit that is available free online. 

- a poc who is tired of the “best diversity in history” blog being wrong about pretty much everything 

What drives me nuts about MPOC is not just the fact that they present themselves as an authority on a subject that they have no learned expertise in. It’s that they present themselves as an authority not DESPITE having no expertise (which tbh I wouldn’t mind that much b/c at least it’s honest), but BECAUSE they have no expertise. They are part of a general trend on tumblr that asserts there is nothing valuable to be learned within the realm of post-secondary education, and the further outside traditional academics an individual is, the more trustworthy a source that individual becomes and the less their methods and words are questioned. It’s a form of reactionary anti-intellectualism and it’s also incredibly dishonest:

… self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals although pseudo-intellectualism is a more commonly… used description for this phenomenon.

In public discourse, anti-intellectuals are usually perceived and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk—populists against political elitism and academic elitism—proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education. [1

The reason it’s dishonest is because even though MPOC’s modus operandi is noble and a worthy pursuit of historical study, the blog is run with the attitude that it is a solitary example of progressivescholarship in a sea of rigid, racist academics who obviously don’t examine or re-asses their methodology. Because it’s not like there is an ENTIRE FIELD OF STUDY DEDICATED TO DOING JUST THAT.  MPOC likes to position themselves as an anti-establishment contrarian who is overturning dominant western myths that would NEVER EVER get questioned or discussed within the realms of actual academia. Just look at this shit they said recently when questioned about the veracity of wikipedia (emphasis mine):

"… the farther back you go, the fewer objects and documents that survive, so it becomes more open to individual interpretation.

And one of the problems there is that you get to a point where there are these interpretations that are considered beyond questioning or revising. It’s like, somewhere between “wicked rude” and “you’ll never get funding if you keep on like that”. As if revisiting primary sources is desecrating sacred ground; as if just kind of bypassing Mr. I Wrote The Book on It 300 Years Ago is equivalent to summoning the Elder Gods to consume civilization as we know it.

Which is why I do get messages from historians and “historians” like, “your methods are disgusting and unacceptable!!!” because yes, yes, I’m breaking the rules; yes, yes, I’m Doing It Wrong. I am a Bad Historian. I think this fails to take into account that I’ll go ahead and cite [that book]… but then I’ll have the brazen gall to disagree on the interpretation of that evidence. [2]

They paint the academic study of history as inherently retrograde and incapable of self-reflection or change. In the atmosphere of debate MPOC creates, a “real historian” - the kind that frequently questions the methodology of MPOC - would NEVER have the “brazen gall” to question “Mr. I Wrote the Book 300 Years Ago” because the dominant western historical narrative is apparently sacrosanct. This is completely inaccurate, which MPOC would know if they had ever taken a single fucking history class in their entire lives, or even if they, you know, read the WIKIPEDIA PAGES for basic fucking things like the Annales School, E.H. Carr’s ‘What is History?’, Postcolonialism or Historical Revisionism. Hey, while we’re here, let’s check out the definition of that last one!!!!:

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.

Let’s repeat and emphasize that last sentence "CONSTANT REVISION OF HISTORY IS PART OF THE !!!NORMAL!!! SCHOLARLY PROCESS OF WRITING HISTORY”. Wow, it’s almost like MPOC’s insistence that academic historians “don’t question” secondary sources that “have been around long enough” is a completely bullshit statement designed to make their naive readers skeptical and distrustful of rigorous scholarship in order to give false authority to their own scholarship.

They don’t even explain coherently WHY they hate certain types of methodology and historiography, they simply react against them because if it’s part of the establishment it must be wrong and if the establishment is wrong, that means MPOC is the authority on the subject and if you question them, it’s because you’re narrow-minded. They spend a lot of time furiously debunking various forms of methodology and categorization as “irrelevant” seemingly because they’ve been called out on not understanding the basic tenants (ie; their tireless crusade against periodization based entirely on a strawman of what they think periodization is and the fact that they’ve been questioned multiple times about their inaccurate application of historical periods).

I’m not saying that it’s impossible to be a fantastic amateur historian. I’m not making an argument that only people who have been formally and academically trained in a subject are allowed to talk about it. I’m saying that MPOC deliberately misrepresents what formal academic history is so that it’s easy for them to dismiss criticism of their own methodology. I actually think they have the potential to be a p. decent history blog if just they would stop trying to position themselves as some sort of iconoclastic history Robin Hood.

Objectivity is a myth. We don’t suddenly stop being human when we start thinking about something! The problem is that there is a lack of openness, a lack of discussion, and a massive amount if bias that only goes one way. There is only one narrative, and no counternarrative. [3]

Provably untrue. There is no want for discussion and counter-narrative in academic historiography.

I agree that objectivity is a largely a myth, but MPOC does a dishonest double-whammy by insisting that because objectivity is objectively impossible, it’s pointless (and implicitly bigoted) to strive for it. They also use the “objectivity is a myth” defense to create a paradigm in which they can admit their bias while still positioning their scholarship as intrinsically more “truthy” than the “real historians” who criticize them because their bias is noble and progressive.

I’ve said time after time after TIME, THIS IS THE STUFF YOU DON’T. LEARN. IN. CLASSES. IF YOU WANT THE STUFF YOU LEARN IN CLASS, GO TO CLASS. AREN’T YOU LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND GET YOUR APPROVED TRUTHS IN THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENT. [4]

How many times do people who actually went to university for history have to tell MPOC that a lot of this stuff is commonly taught in their programs and, furthermore, most of it is historiography 101. Hell, I went to a tiny, local university not particularly known for it’s history department and my ‘Western Civilization 1000’ course was about the interconnected histories of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. We spent as long studying Ethiopia as we did the rise of Islam and the Reformation. Our textbooks were very common, widely taught academic readers used throughout North America and English-speaking Europe so it’s not like it was some kind of intentionally revisionist course or w/e.

Do any of you have any idea how amazing the concept of “we have created entirely new questions regarding ancient history/historiography” is????

We have proved that this level of discourse can be made accessible, and I’m pretty sure we all just leveled up. [5]

The discussion on MPOC is TOTALLY REVOLUTIONARY SCHOLARSHIP that would otherwise NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO LAYPEOPLE!!! AMAZING!!!! They are asking questions that have NEVER BEEN ASKED!!!!

MPOC claims from one side of their mouth that they don’t intend for their readers to take them as an authority and they welcome well-thought out criticism [6] while from the other side they insist that they are a source of information and perspective that is otherwise unrepresented in the academic world.

The blog is scholarship by a person who insists that traditional methodology is unimportant. MPOC also emphasizes the myth of “inaccessible” academia, adding to an atmosphere that discourages people from engaging with critical scholarship because it’s “elitist” and only for “rich white kids” despite the increasing efforts on the part of scholars from minority or oppressed groups to make scholarly readings available and inclusive.

LIKE THE ONES OP LINKED IN THEIR POST. GO CHECK THOSE OUT IF YOU’RE INTERESTED.

(via historymaker)

595 notes

Small Acts of Resistance: 1982 boycott of TV news in Poland

still-intrepid:

"There was a boycott of national TV news in very early 1982.  Tanks had gone on the streets, the television news of course was telling pure lies, about how marvellous life was now, isn’t it great that Solidarity is gone.  Which to put it mildly it was not the narrative being heard in the sitting rooms of the people watching the television bulletin. 

So they said, Let’s have a boycott of TV news.  But then people said, Well what’s the point having a boycott if no one knows we’re doing it?  So in one particular part of Poland they started putting television sets out into the window — disconnect the television set and put it in the window as your statement to say we’re not watching in this household at least. 

That was one group, but a second group said: Well, that’s kind of good, but I like doing it with other people as well…  So the second group went down into the square and walked around the streets and the square between 7.30 and 8 every evening - without any slogans, which of course immediately got you arrested, tanks on the street around.  But everybody kind of knew why you were there.  But the police couldn’t arrest you because they couldn’t tell the difference between a shopper or someone who’s just out for a walk and someone who is protesting.  So that was a nice little protest.

And then the best group of all, my absolute favourite, combined the two and they said, I kind of like going in the square but I kind of like showing it’s about TV.  So what they did was they took the television, unplugged it, carried it out of the apartment, carried it down the stairs, carried it into the streets - either put it on their shoulders or put it in a babies’ pram, and then walked around the streets with the TV.

Again the police kind of really didn’t know how to react, they did kind of arrest people but it was hard to find the article in the constitution which says, You must not carry a TV around the square between 7.30 and 8 at night.  And so the result was the only thing the authorities could do - which was fundamentally a defeat for the authorities - was to bring the curfew when you’d be arrested or shot if you stepped out of your door, instead of it being 11 o’clock in the evening they brought it forward to 7o’clock in the evening. 

Whereupon the protesters, I should say, did it during the 5 o’clock news bulletin instead.”

- Steve Cranshaw relates one story from his book Small Acts of Resistance in a Humanity in Action keynote in Warsaw called Poland’s Narrative of Protest.

Go listen to the talk and be inspired and informed and mightily entertained :)  (also available as a podcast)

(via polishartsrebellion)

Filed under history

25,674 notes

Unlike Godzilla, Pacific Rim doesn’t try to be serious even when it’s being serious. Characters have names like Stacker Pentecost and Hercules Hansen. The film requires you to believe that the best way to battle a giant monster is to build an even larger robot to fight that monster.

Much of the Act 2 drama derives from inter-pilot tension airlifted from the Val Kilmer scenes in Top Gun. It’s the polar opposite of the Godzilla school of drama, where everyone is a total professional who has absolutely no personal goal besides Saving The World. In Pacific Rim, Idris Elba is Rinko Kikuchi’s Obi-Wan Kenobi, and two of the last Giant Robot-pilots in the world frequently get into sneering fights over who’s the bigger badass, and Charlie Day is a scientist.

So, for all these reasons, Pacific Rim is a movie that I’ve heard perfectly smart people describe as “stupid” or “silly.” The problem with this line of thinking is that, really, that every blockbuster is pretty “silly,” in the context of Things Adults Should Care About. Godzilla is not less stupid than Pacific Rim just because people frown more. […]

The difference, I think, is that Pacific Rim glories in its own silliness. There’s a flashback scene where Idris Elba rescues a little girl, and when he emerges from his giant robot, the sun shines upon him like he’s the catharsis in a biblical epic. There’s a moment when one giant robot swings an oil tanker like a sword. Then it grows a sword out of its wrist. Then it falls from space to earth.

There are real complaints to make about Pacific Rim, I guess, all of them fair and most of them pedantic. I know a lot of people who have issues with the story. (“Why didn’t they use the wrist-sword earlier?” is a popular one.) Conversely, I don’t really know anyone who minds the story in Godzilla, possibly because everything stupid that happens is prefaced by Frowning Watanabe saying “This is why the stupid thing that’s about to happen makes sense.” Godzilla wants so badly to make sense. Pacific Rim wants so badly for Ron Perlman to wear golden shoes.

Darren Franich, “Entertainment Geekly: A call for an end to serious blockbusters” (via rahleighs)

(Source: margotkim, via amarguerite)

Filed under Pacific Rim wants so badly for Ron Perlman to wear golden shoes pacific rim godzilla

3,614 notes

Perhaps the most widespread myth is the belief that mothers are favored by courts in custody disputes, which stopped being true decades ago. It is true that for roughly the first half of the 1900s the ‘Tender Years Doctrine’ was influential, and mothers had some advantage in gaining custody of young children. (Prior to about 1900, mothers had no rights regarding custody at all.) But in the 1970s the tide was turning back, for various reasons, and by the 1980s fathers were winning at least joint custody in a majority of the custody battles they undertook, and winning sole custody more often than mothers, a situation that remains today. And the fathers who are taking advantage of this imbalance are largely abusive ones; researchers have found that abusers are twice as likely as non-abusive men to seek custody.

[…]

Courts are highly reluctant to curtail fathers’ access to their children. As a number of court employees have said to me over the years, ‘There are so many fathers out there who abandon their children, and here I have a dad who wants to be involved; you’re telling me I should discourage him?’ As a result they tend to hold fathers to much lower standards than mothers. Supervised visitation is not often imposed, and usually gets lifted within a few months as long as the father behaves well under supervisions, as most abusive men do.
Lundy Bancroft in When Dad Hurts Mom: Helping Your Children Heal the Wounds of Witnessing Abuse (2004), pp. 240, 243–44 (via mikroblogolas)

(via teapotsahoy)