Is Best
Is Best

Is Best

Was
Was

Was

Its
Its

Its

Sources
Sources

Sources

From
From

From

The
The

The

Original
Original

Original

Writers
Writers

Writers

Libby
Libby

Libby

But
But

But

🔥 | Latest

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...

England, Fucking, and Stephen: A Portrait of James Il's 'Husband' Has Reappeared in Glasgovw "I desire only to live in this world for your sake," the king wrote to him. BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged from conservation work and been authenticated, after having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham, rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later "improvements." In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks, and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I lavished attention and care on him, and called him "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has been a source of some contention. In their letters, James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers. runawayrat: squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens Im fucking deceased
England, Fucking, and Stephen: A Portrait of James Il's
 'Husband' Has
 Reappeared in
 Glasgovw
 "I desire only to live in this world for
 your sake," the king wrote to him.
 BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king
 James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and
 the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged
 from conservation work and been authenticated, after
 having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC
 reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham,
 rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye
 at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known
 to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been
 concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later
 "improvements."

 In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate
 lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks,
 and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man
 in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I
 lavished attention and care on him, and called him
 "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had
 the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and
 James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has
 been a source of some contention. In their letters,
 James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting
 "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have
 argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male
 friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors
 flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in
 one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers.
runawayrat:

squidsticks:

King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband*

Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens


Im fucking deceased

runawayrat: squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: i...

Anaconda, Apparently, and Assassination: prokopetz Everybody talks about Anastasia, which is a shame, because it's a far less interesting example of Russian fake heir drama than that whole business with the False Dmitries Okay, so Ivan the Terrible's youngest son, Dmitry, was assassinated in 1591 at the age of 8. Fast-forward nine years, and there's a guy going about Eastern Europe claiming that he is Dmitry, having secretly escaped the assassination attempt and lived in hiding under a false identity ever since. This sort of business isn't too unusual, but this guy actually pulls it off, managing to gain the Russian throne and rule for nearly eleven months before being dragged from the palace and publicly executed in early 1606. He'd subsequently go down in history as False Dmitry I Here's where it gets interesting. In mid 1607, a second impostor declares himself. Bizarrely, this one doesn't dispute the first impostor's legitimacy; instead, he claims to be the same guy, having miraculously survived his apparent execution the year before. He somehow wins the political support of False Dmitry I's widow, and with her vouching for his identity, he gains the allegiance of the Cossacks, rallies an army over 100 000 strong, and tries to take back" the throne. Though his march on Moscow ultimately failed, he successfully conquered most of Southeastern Russia, which he would rule until his untimely death in December of 1610, when he was beheaded in a drunken altercation with a Tartar prince. The history books know him as False Dmitry II Now jump ahead three months to March of 1611, when a third fucking impostor pops up. Dude apparently just magically appeared from behind a waterfall in goddamn Ivangorod and declared himself Tsar. Following the lead of False Dmitry I1, he doesn't dispute either of the two previous impostors, instead claiming some sort of spiritual reincarnation and/or magical resurrection - it's not entirely clear which - to establish himself as the same guy. He must have talked a good game, because he managed to win the support of the same fucking Cossacks who supported False Dmitry Il's claim. Unfortunately, he was a far less able commander, being forced to flee his stronghold only a year later, whereupon he was spirited away to Moscow and secretly executed. Though he never managed to actually rule anything, historians decided to stick to the theme and dubbed him False Dmitry Il At this point the historical record becomes confused, with some sources asserting there was a fourth False Dmitry, though others insist that the third False Dmitry was simply counted twice due to poor record-keeping. Still, whether we're talking about three False Dmitries or four, imagine the whole mess from the Tsar's perspective. Dude just wouldn't stay dead! gryphye ohh vou missed one of my favorite bits False Dmitry I not only was executed, it was KNOWN he was fake. Powers that be used him until he was trouble, and THEN executed him Then quartered hinm Then cremated what was left. Stuffed the ashes in a can And shot him out of a cannon back towards Poland, where he actually came from. He pissed off a few people, yeah prokopetz It was a very miraculous survival Source:prokopetz 8,898 notes Nobody made a movie about this because it was just too weird
Anaconda, Apparently, and Assassination: prokopetz
 Everybody talks about Anastasia, which is a shame, because it's a far less
 interesting example of Russian fake heir drama than that whole business with
 the False Dmitries
 Okay, so Ivan the Terrible's youngest son, Dmitry, was assassinated in 1591 at
 the age of 8. Fast-forward nine years, and there's a guy going about Eastern
 Europe claiming that he is Dmitry, having secretly escaped the assassination
 attempt and lived in hiding under a false identity ever since. This sort of business
 isn't too unusual, but this guy actually pulls it off, managing to gain the Russian
 throne and rule for nearly eleven months before being dragged from the palace
 and publicly executed in early 1606. He'd subsequently go down in history as
 False Dmitry I
 Here's where it gets interesting. In mid 1607, a second impostor declares
 himself. Bizarrely, this one doesn't dispute the first impostor's legitimacy;
 instead, he claims to be the same guy, having miraculously survived his
 apparent execution the year before. He somehow wins the political support of
 False Dmitry I's widow, and with her vouching for his identity, he gains the
 allegiance of the Cossacks, rallies an army over 100 000 strong, and tries to
 take back" the throne. Though his march on Moscow ultimately failed, he
 successfully conquered most of Southeastern Russia, which he would rule until
 his untimely death in December of 1610, when he was beheaded in a drunken
 altercation with a Tartar prince. The history books know him as False Dmitry II
 Now jump ahead three months to March of 1611, when a third fucking
 impostor pops up. Dude apparently just magically appeared from behind a
 waterfall in goddamn Ivangorod and declared himself Tsar. Following the lead of
 False Dmitry I1, he doesn't dispute either of the two previous impostors, instead
 claiming some sort of spiritual reincarnation and/or magical resurrection - it's not
 entirely clear which - to establish himself as the same guy. He must have talked
 a good game, because he managed to win the support of the same fucking
 Cossacks who supported False Dmitry Il's claim. Unfortunately, he was a far less
 able commander, being forced to flee his stronghold only a year later,
 whereupon he was spirited away to Moscow and secretly executed. Though he
 never managed to actually rule anything, historians decided to stick to the theme
 and dubbed him False Dmitry Il
 At this point the historical record becomes confused, with some sources
 asserting there was a fourth False Dmitry, though others insist that the third
 False Dmitry was simply counted twice due to poor record-keeping. Still,
 whether we're talking about three False Dmitries or four, imagine the whole
 mess from the Tsar's perspective. Dude just wouldn't stay dead!
 gryphye
 ohh vou missed one of my favorite bits
 False Dmitry I not only was executed, it was KNOWN he was fake. Powers that
 be used him until he was trouble, and THEN executed him
 Then quartered hinm
 Then cremated what was left.
 Stuffed the ashes in a can
 And shot him out of a cannon back towards Poland, where he actually came
 from.
 He pissed off a few people, yeah
 prokopetz
 It was a very miraculous survival
 Source:prokopetz
 8,898 notes
Nobody made a movie about this because it was just too weird

Nobody made a movie about this because it was just too weird

Life, Movies, and Soldiers: hotdadcalendar I literally can't get myself to sit through movies that don't have women. I'm like where the fuck are the women? Why are there so many men? This is boring as fuck goodbye elfman98 Even if it's historically accurate? marzipanandminutiae as everyone knows, women were invented in 1990 ranger-truth All the notes of "women weren't on old time battlefields" are wrong. There were more prostitutes and merchant women than there were soldiers in most every encampment. They followed the armies, marching alongside them, and notably ran the camps. Many more women dressed as men to fight. Long before female nurses were officially considered to be a part of the military, they were already on the battlefield They merely didn't get written into official reports because they were "invisible women", "not supposed to be there" Usually they would be local women running a makeshift care center out of their homes. Movies involving ancient societies? Guess how many had female fighters? Spies? Mostly female. Yeah, only the men were caught, usually (because nobody suspected the servant woman), but historians believe most cases had more women spies than men. Most cases meaning across time and continents. karadin Note, in most films, tv productions, even commercials, women only comprise 17% of the people in a crowd scene, any more and viewers think 'there are too many women' to be realistic - even when in real life, women are just over half the population WOMEN WERE INVENTED IN 1990
Life, Movies, and Soldiers: hotdadcalendar
 I literally can't get myself to sit through movies that don't
 have women. I'm like where the fuck are the women? Why
 are there so many men? This is boring as fuck goodbye
 elfman98
 Even if it's historically accurate?
 marzipanandminutiae
 as everyone knows, women were invented in 1990
 ranger-truth
 All the notes of "women weren't on old time battlefields"
 are wrong. There were more prostitutes and merchant
 women than there were soldiers in most every
 encampment. They followed the armies, marching
 alongside them, and notably ran the camps.
 Many more women dressed as men to fight.
 Long before female nurses were officially considered to be
 a part of the military, they were already on the battlefield
 They merely didn't get written into official reports because
 they were "invisible women", "not supposed to be there"
 Usually they would be local women running a makeshift
 care center out of their homes.
 Movies involving ancient societies? Guess how many had
 female fighters?
 Spies? Mostly female. Yeah, only the men were caught,
 usually (because nobody suspected the servant woman),
 but historians believe most cases had more women spies
 than men. Most cases meaning across time and
 continents.
 karadin
 Note, in most films, tv productions, even commercials,
 women only comprise 17% of the people in a crowd scene,
 any more and viewers think 'there are too many women' to
 be realistic - even when in real life, women are just over
 half the population
WOMEN WERE INVENTED IN 1990

WOMEN WERE INVENTED IN 1990

Feminism, Fucking, and News: Mr.Knowledge13 @True_kwu Follow Ludwig Van Beethoven was so called Black. The classical composer's mother was a Moor Even though paintings of the composer depict him as very Caucasian, his death mask highlights his African features. 9:23 AM-19 Mar 2018 1,202 Retweets 1,985 Likes 砝ビ) ③巻 Thanbo @DeboTARANTINO Follow Damn we got zaytoven and beethovern Mr.Knowledge13T @True_kwu Ludwig Van Beethoven was so called Black. The classical composer's mother was a Moor. Even though paintings of the composer depict him as very Caucasian, his death .む 7:14 AM- 20 Mar 2018 ed OC 5,287 Retweets 7,150 Likes lastsonlost: libertarirynn: feminists-against-feminism: feminists-against-feminism: allronix: nicky-cass: absolutely-walnuts: holy shit “Ludwig van Beethoven was of African descent, and the truth of his ethnic origins was covered up through a mixture of white powder worn on his face when out in public, the use of body doubles for portraits, and “euro-centric” historians, hiding the truth of his genetic heritage.“ - src I’m mad that we aren’t taught this Again, PLEASE fact check. This is bunk.  The man pictured is indeed a Black composer, but he’s not Beethoven! He’s  Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges   The Chevalier was a renowned Renaissance man of his era; a skilled soldier, revolutionary, composer, piano tutor (to Marie Antoinette!) , writer, actor, and singer.  Please do not erase him from history for the sake of an appealing lie.  pfft, so you’re telling me this was a bunch of bologne? … Bologna? And Tumblr continuesto be completely embarrassing It’s like we have a generation compulsive pathological Liars. Not only that but like the person above said they completely erased the identity of a legitimate black classical composer, and it’s fucking awesome to know that those existed. You had an opportunity for legitimate representation and you decided to turn it into a ridiculous lie instead.
Feminism, Fucking, and News: Mr.Knowledge13
 @True_kwu
 Follow
 Ludwig Van Beethoven was so called Black.
 The classical composer's mother was a Moor
 Even though paintings of the composer
 depict him as very Caucasian, his death mask
 highlights his African features.
 9:23 AM-19 Mar 2018
 1,202 Retweets 1,985 Likes
 砝ビ)
 ③巻

 Thanbo
 @DeboTARANTINO
 Follow
 Damn we got zaytoven and beethovern
 Mr.Knowledge13T @True_kwu
 Ludwig Van Beethoven was so called Black. The classical
 composer's mother was a Moor. Even though paintings of
 the composer depict him as very Caucasian, his death
 .む
 7:14 AM- 20 Mar 2018
 ed OC
 5,287 Retweets 7,150 Likes
lastsonlost:

libertarirynn:

feminists-against-feminism:

feminists-against-feminism:
allronix:

nicky-cass:

absolutely-walnuts:

holy shit
“Ludwig van Beethoven was of African descent, and the truth of his ethnic origins was covered up through a mixture of white powder worn on his face when out in public, the use of body doubles for portraits, and “euro-centric” historians, hiding the truth of his genetic heritage.“ - src


I’m mad that we aren’t taught this

Again, PLEASE fact check. This is bunk. 
The man pictured is indeed a Black composer, but he’s not Beethoven! He’s 

Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges

 
The Chevalier was a renowned Renaissance man of his era; a skilled soldier, revolutionary, composer, piano tutor (to Marie Antoinette!) , writer, actor, and singer. 
Please do not erase him from history for the sake of an appealing lie. 

pfft, so you’re telling me this was a bunch of bologne?

… Bologna?

And Tumblr continuesto be completely embarrassing

It’s like we have a generation compulsive pathological Liars.

Not only that but like the person above said they completely erased the identity of a legitimate black classical composer, and it’s fucking awesome to know that those existed. You had an opportunity for legitimate representation and you decided to turn it into a ridiculous lie instead.

lastsonlost: libertarirynn: feminists-against-feminism: feminists-against-feminism: allronix: nicky-cass: absolutely-walnuts: holy shi...

Feminism, News, and Paintings: Mr.Knowledge13 @True_kwu Follow Ludwig Van Beethoven was so called Black. The classical composer's mother was a Moor Even though paintings of the composer depict him as very Caucasian, his death mask highlights his African features. 9:23 AM-19 Mar 2018 1,202 Retweets 1,985 Likes 砝ビ) ③巻 Thanbo @DeboTARANTINO Follow Damn we got zaytoven and beethovern Mr.Knowledge13T @True_kwu Ludwig Van Beethoven was so called Black. The classical composer's mother was a Moor. Even though paintings of the composer depict him as very Caucasian, his death .む 7:14 AM- 20 Mar 2018 ed OC 5,287 Retweets 7,150 Likes feminists-against-feminism: feminists-against-feminism: allronix: nicky-cass: absolutely-walnuts: holy shit “Ludwig van Beethoven was of African descent, and the truth of his ethnic origins was covered up through a mixture of white powder worn on his face when out in public, the use of body doubles for portraits, and “euro-centric” historians, hiding the truth of his genetic heritage.“ - src I’m mad that we aren’t taught this Again, PLEASE fact check. This is bunk.  The man pictured is indeed a Black composer, but he’s not Beethoven! He’s  Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges   The Chevalier was a renowned Renaissance man of his era; a skilled soldier, revolutionary, composer, piano tutor (to Marie Antoinette!) , writer, actor, and singer.  Please do not erase him from history for the sake of an appealing lie.  pfft, so you’re telling me this was a bunch of bologne? … Bologna? And Tumblr continuesto be completely embarrassing
Feminism, News, and Paintings: Mr.Knowledge13
 @True_kwu
 Follow
 Ludwig Van Beethoven was so called Black.
 The classical composer's mother was a Moor
 Even though paintings of the composer
 depict him as very Caucasian, his death mask
 highlights his African features.
 9:23 AM-19 Mar 2018
 1,202 Retweets 1,985 Likes
 砝ビ)
 ③巻

 Thanbo
 @DeboTARANTINO
 Follow
 Damn we got zaytoven and beethovern
 Mr.Knowledge13T @True_kwu
 Ludwig Van Beethoven was so called Black. The classical
 composer's mother was a Moor. Even though paintings of
 the composer depict him as very Caucasian, his death
 .む
 7:14 AM- 20 Mar 2018
 ed OC
 5,287 Retweets 7,150 Likes
feminists-against-feminism:

feminists-against-feminism:
allronix:

nicky-cass:

absolutely-walnuts:

holy shit
“Ludwig van Beethoven was of African descent, and the truth of his ethnic origins was covered up through a mixture of white powder worn on his face when out in public, the use of body doubles for portraits, and “euro-centric” historians, hiding the truth of his genetic heritage.“ - src


I’m mad that we aren’t taught this

Again, PLEASE fact check. This is bunk. 
The man pictured is indeed a Black composer, but he’s not Beethoven! He’s 

Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges

 
The Chevalier was a renowned Renaissance man of his era; a skilled soldier, revolutionary, composer, piano tutor (to Marie Antoinette!) , writer, actor, and singer. 
Please do not erase him from history for the sake of an appealing lie. 

pfft, so you’re telling me this was a bunch of bologne?

… Bologna?

And Tumblr continuesto be completely embarrassing

feminists-against-feminism: feminists-against-feminism: allronix: nicky-cass: absolutely-walnuts: holy shit “Ludwig van Beethoven was of...

Future, Target, and Tumblr: DO IT FOR YOURSEL chaosgaminggirl: klubbhead: pendaly: bossubossupromode: Good luck historians of the future.
Future, Target, and Tumblr: DO IT FOR
 YOURSEL
chaosgaminggirl:
klubbhead:

pendaly:

bossubossupromode:




Good luck historians of the future.

chaosgaminggirl: klubbhead: pendaly: bossubossupromode: Good luck historians of the future.

England, Stephen, and Tumblr: squidsticks A Portrait of James l's Husband' Has Reappeared in Glasgow "I desire only to live in this world for your sake," the king wrote to him. BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 0) A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and the one he loved "more than anyone else" has emerged from conservation work and been authenticated, after having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC reports, George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham, rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later improvements." In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks, and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied marn in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I lavished attention and care on him, and called him Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks, and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England," with a “lovely complexion." James I lavished attention and care on him, and called him Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has been a source of some contention. In their letters James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting, "that I can scarcely see to write." But scholars have argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors flared up upon the 2008 discovery of a secret passage in one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it's very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let's not look at this through a 21st century lens Fuente: squidsticks 117,177 notas Dammit straight people
England, Stephen, and Tumblr: squidsticks
 A Portrait of James l's
 Husband' Has
 Reappeared in
 Glasgow
 "I desire only to live in this world for
 your sake," the king wrote to him.
 BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017
 0)

 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king
 James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and
 the one he loved "more than anyone else" has emerged
 from conservation work and been authenticated, after
 having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC
 reports, George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham,
 rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye
 at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known
 to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been
 concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later
 improvements."
 In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate
 lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks,
 and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied marn
 in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I
 lavished attention and care on him, and called him
 Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had

 In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate
 lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks,
 and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man
 in all of England," with a “lovely complexion." James I
 lavished attention and care on him, and called him
 Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had
 the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and
 James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has
 been a source of some contention. In their letters
 James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting,
 "that I can scarcely see to write." But scholars have
 argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male
 friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors
 flared up upon the 2008 discovery of a secret passage in
 one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers
 King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room
 to the room of a man he calls his husband*
 Historians: it's very hard to tell what kind of relationship
 they would have had, let's not look at this through a 21st
 century lens
 Fuente: squidsticks
 117,177 notas
Dammit straight people

Dammit straight people