05 4 / 2013
One thing that I keep working around in my brain is the idea of what’s public and what’s not, and if it’s really a binary or not.
Like, offline, I think we all understand that a private conversation can happen in a public space. I think we all understand that when you and your friends sit down in the comfy chairs in the corner of the bookstore, it would be weird and rude and not socially called for if someone were to come in and plop down in the middle of your circle and say “Don’t mind me, keep talking about what you’re talking about.”
I think we also understand things like: even if you don’t put a fence around your yard, other people don’t get to ride dirtbikes through it, and if your fence is chainlink and thus easy to see through and easy to get over that doesn’t mean you don’t ~*really*~ want privacy.
And we understand… although this varies because of things like rape culture and the entitlement of the privileged, but we generally understand that if someone is out in public and you talk to them and they ask you to leave them alone, whether they can force you to leave them alone doesn’t matter. They’ve set a boundary and it’s yours to follow.
Yet for many people, this understanding evaporates completely online. All space is public space and everything in public is completely public. Anything that other people can access, they feel entitled to access.
Ask people to stay off your blog? “It’s a public blog.” Throw up an access barrier like blanking the default public page? “It’s still a public blog, you shouldn’t be on Tumblr if you don’t want to be public. Besides, there are seventeen ways around that, so it doesn’t count.” It’s like seeing a chainlink fence and saying there yard isn’t really fenced because you can still get over it.
And people will say that’s just how the internet is. But says who? And why? It’s nothing but social convention that says that the space you stake out for yourself in physical space is not 100% public. It’s nothing but social convention… or more specifically, the perceived lack of a social convention to the contrary… that leaves people feeling like everything on the internet is meant for everybody (meaning, specifically, themselves).
04 11 / 2012
Britain has invaded all but 22 countries in the world in its long and colourful history, new research has found.
Every schoolboy used to know that at the height of the empire, almost a quarter of the atlas was coloured pink, showing the extent of British rule.
But that oft recited fact dramatically understates the remarkable global reach achieved by this country.
A new study has found that at various times the British have invaded almost 90 per cent of the countries around the globe.
The analysis of the histories of the almost 200 countries in the world found only 22 which have never experienced an invasion by the British.
Among this select group of nations are far-off destinations such as Guatemala, Tajikistan and the Marshall Islands, as well some slightly closer to home, such as Luxembourg.
The analysis is contained in a new book, All the Countries We’ve Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To.
Stuart Laycock, the author, has worked his way around the globe, through each country alphabetically, researching its history to establish whether, at any point, they have experienced an incursion by Britain.
Only a comparatively small proportion of the total in Mr Laycock’s list of invaded states actually formed an official part of the empire.
The remainder have been included because the British were found to have achieved some sort of military presence in the territory – however transitory – either through force, the threat of force, negotiation or payment.
Incursions by British pirates, privateers or armed explorers have also been included, provided they were operating with the approval of their government.
So, many countries which once formed part of the Spanish empire and seem to have little historical connection with the UK, such as Costa Rica, Ecuador and El Salvador, make the list because of the repeated raids they suffered from state-sanctioned British sailors.
Among some of the perhaps surprising entries on the list are:
* Cuba, where in 1741, a force under Admiral Edward Vernon stormed ashore at Guantánamo Bay. He renamed it Cumberland Bay, before being forced to withdraw in the face of hostile locals and an outbreak of disease among his men. Twenty one years later, Havana and a large part of the island fell to the British after a bloody siege, only to be handed back to the Spanish in 1763, along with another unlikely British possession, the Philippines, in exchange for Florida and Minorca.
*Iceland, invaded in 1940 by the British after the neutral nation refused to enter the war on the Allies side. The invasion force, of 745 marines, met with strong protest from the Iceland government, but no resistance.
* Vietnam, which has experienced repeated incursions by the British since the seventeenth century. The most recent – from 1945 to 1946 – saw the British fight a campaign for control of the country against communists, in a war that has been overshadowed by later conflicts involving first the French and then Americans.
It is thought to be the first time such a list has been compiled.
Mr Laycock, who has previously published books on Roman history, began the unusual quest after being asked by his 11-year-old son, Frederick, how many countries the British had invaded.
After almost two years of research he said he was shocked by the answer. “I was absolutely staggered when I reached the total. I like to think I have a relatively good general knowledge. But there are places where it hadn’t occurred to me that these things had ever happened. It shocked me.
“Other countries could write similar books – but they would be much shorter. I don’t think anyone could match this, although the Americans had a later start and have been working hard on it in the twentieth century.”
The only other nation which has achieved anything approaching the British total, Mr Laycock said, is France – which also holds the unfortunate record for having endured the most British invasions. “I realise people may argue with some of my reasons, but it is intended to prompt debate,” he added.
He believes the actual figure may well be higher and is inviting the public to get in touch to provide evidence of other invasions.
In the case of Mongolia, for instance – one of the 22 nations “not invaded”, according to the book – he believes it possible that there could have been a British invasion, but could find no direct proof.
The country was caught up in the turmoil following the Russian Revolution, in which the British and other powers intervened. Mr Laycock found evidence of a British military mission in Russia approximately 50 miles from the Mongolian border, but could not establish whether it got any closer.
The research lists countries based on their current national boundaries and names. Many of the invasions took place when these did not apply.
The research covered the 192 other UN member states as well as the Vatican City and Kosovo, which are not member states, but are recognised by the UK government as independent states.
The earliest invasion launched from these islands was an incursion into Gaul – now France – at the end of the second century. Clodius Albinus led an army, thought to include many Britons, across the Channel in an attempt to seize the imperial throne. The force was defeated in 197 at Lyon.
Mr Laycock added: “One one level, for the British, it is quite amazing and quite humbling, that this is all part of our history, but clearly there are parts of our history that we are less proud of. The book is not intended as any kind of moral judgment on our history or our empire. It is meant as a light-hearted bit of fun.”
The countries never invaded by the British:
Central African Republic
Congo, Republic of
Sao Tome and Principe
29 10 / 2012
I need you to understand this very clearly before you go any further.
No one has committed to being fair.
Stop asking for it.
I do not condone anyone issuing threats against your person, trying to incite violence towards you , or using multiple accounts and invading your space to trigger you.
Except most of the behaviors mentioned
HAVE NOT HAPPENED TO YOU.
They have happened to Riley.
By people you condone, and excuse condoning by citing private convos.
And that’s why.
I wish you all health and safety in your life.
In the same breath I will assure you that if you do not act in a manner that assures it for folks I am concerned with.
I will do anything up to the limits I have stated above.
To back you the fuck off.
You’re assuming I’ve never suffered abuse amongst many other things, which is the sad part about it. So if Riley reblogs shit that people want them not to reblog that person has the right to get their IP address and do whatever it takes to fuck up their life? I want you to sit back and think about this. You wan’t people to respect you but you don’t have an obligation to respect me? What about the abuse Riley has condoned or the comments they have ignored when people are offended?
Except one I have made no claims to your status as a survivor. There is no sadness about it.
What I am saying and I want to be very VERY clear is that when you are using dog whistles codewords and vendettas ( as well as condescending ” sit and think tactics” ) willy nilly .
IT . DOESN’T. MATTER. You can survive trauma and STILL be an abuser.
And at that point the person you are targeting . OWES YOU NOTHING.
And if Riley reflags folks who are combing their internet history and condoning sending them death threats as well as WALLS of NIgger. BITCH . CUNT or hive minded harpy language, and then have the nerve to request it not be reflagged?
Or if Struggling asks and TELLS you to keep their name out of your mouth. and you proceed to do so anyway.
You are using abuser tactics, which have nothing to do with respect and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that you think that whatever they do ,their position is so low you can use a system to force harm on them to conform.
And if they can BEAT that by using your information…………..
I’m all for it. And I’ll reblog it.
Because it’s not about ” fucking up their life” It’s about getting them to back off, and if their lives are based around having POC specifically genderqueer and women to oppress and abuse then yes it’s about fucking up their lives.
Not at all apologetic.
Now you sit back and think , very deeply. As 1, I hate that phraseology because it assumes I’m not. I noticed the lexical shift you attempted in shifting the subject from what YOU are doing to Riley and your warped kindergartner version of the golden rule.
No one is obligated to respect me. I learned that the hard and violent way. As such when folks do , when folks repeat behaviors connected to traumas I have suffered and I warn them , when folks trigger feelings I have that make me defend in a way screaming BACK OFF. I’m not worried about their respect, that’s long gone. I’m reacting our of protective instinct and safety and I will always value that over respect and DAMN SURE over anyone else’s right to respect. Everyday. Twice on the ones ending in Y.
Finally, as you try again to use that and sleight of hand BACK to Riley. As They have asked you : What are you talking about.
Do you want me to say Riley uses imagery of a very sexual nature on their own blog and in response to those who would use their blog tat makes me uncomfortable at times.
Have they condoned responses to people attacking them that make my ears bleed. You betcha.
But until riley dedicates heir time to pursuing,shaming and harming folks AFTER they have said back off ? It’s not abuse .
Finally comments that have offended?
Riley has said somethings that have offended ME. Is that what you wanna hear?
Riley has said somethings about a friend of mine and her race that still offend me?
I still follow, and ya know what.
It’s RILEYS DAMN BLOG. They are not beholden to me or anybody else’s feelings and to try and magic switch that when we are talking about you using a platform to target and attack folks is disingenuous at best and the textbook example of abusive gas lighting at worst.
When interactions cross over into abuse , the abused owes the abuser NOTHING.
Not consideration of their abuse , not their time , not kindness.
I care about what happens to Riley.
I care enough that I don’t feel it’s conditional upon how they PLEASE my touchy sensibilities with THEIR OWN MOTHERFUCKING work.
and you’re joining a long line of people who think that is preposterous not for any real reason but your disregard on their humanity.
I don’t have to ” think ” about that.
I feel of my own volition the need for it to STOP.
26 10 / 2012
Professional feminists are most often temper tantrum having babies who have no discernible skills beside bullying and self aggrandizement
It’s why they’re not theorists or organizers.
Name a non organizing feminist think tank or org that has lasted more than ten years
That WASN’T headed or started by a WOC connected to the civil rights or labor movement
21 10 / 2012
“You know what the translation here is, right? “If we focus on structural, systemic problems, then I don’t get to tell people what to do, how to fuck, how to eat, or how to be cool like I am. And the deal I made when I became a pwofessionial feminist is that I would get to do ALL these things. No, no, you can’t take that away from me!” Stamp foot, cue tantrum.”
‘Twas ever thus.
21 10 / 2012
And it keeps coming back and I keep finding inadequate words to explain that.
But That gifset is probably closest.
Black girls should get the full ability to make lives where they smile and laugh and are adored like that.
Poor women should have that.
Chicana women should have it
Latina women should have it
Trans women should have it
White women should have it
All women should have it
All people sjould have it
Peopel who love them should have a world where it is okay to be unabashedly smitten with them like that.
Not just but oh hell yes sexually, or romantically , not only but all the time just enjoying the deep and utter love , joy and silly havinga happy woman in your life can do
I want that for myself .
I want that for everyone.
That is how this STARTED.
When I stand up with other women and say
” You exist and are awesome and I think you shhould have a world where you can find that . “
” You exist and i hate you ut you should stillhave that”
You are keeping that FROM people and for stupid reason
like its so BASIC !!!