A selection of strange and cryptic personal ads from The New York Herald, 1860s to 1870s. 17/?

leander: hey girl* what's your load bearing limit tiên: 🤷 leander: understandable have a nice day

The problem with new atheism wasn't the atheism, it was dennet's idea of religion as a natural phenomenon to be studied by a natural science, and sam harris's fmri of religious believers, and the idea of "us" as pro-science united against an anti-science enemy, with "science" taken to include the stupidest most p-hacked most confounded social science research

here's something i suspect is connected. Religious communities have enforced gender conformity and performance of heterosexuality.

My own opposition to that is based on I think common sense experience with people and a libertarian-ish view of government and society. For example that, roughly, "love is love" and yaoi couples and yuri couples are really the same kind of thing as regular couples. Plus the idea that a tradition like marriage is an accommodation to human nature—that we form couples and families—rather than a tool to enforce community standards on what kind of couples and families our neighbors think we should form. I guess, a sort of classical liberal view of government, but more broadly an opposition to busybodies in favor of a truce where we don't interfere with each other.

But in fact the opposition to the religious ideal was substantially public health flavored: that enforcing gender conformity would lead to suicides of trans people, for example.

Can I blame this on the new atheist zeitgeist of opposing religious authority with scientific authority?

something I keep saying is that if you base your stance on a particular fact then you have to be willing to revise if that fact turns out to be false, and if you know you're not willing to change your opinion then don't base it on that fact! it's fine to have values like "I want the freedom to do this even if it turns out it harms me", or whatever.

@reamed

Oh that is so cool

@elodieunderglass

A beautiful baby!

@elodieunderglass i bring tribute

source

Thank you so much @thiefree

The irony of doing deforestation in a land that already has nearly no forests, only to place some giant bird-killing things there in the name of “green energy.” Don’t let me even get started about how much harmful manufacturing processes need to take place to make wind turbines.

>the trees that were cut down were a commercial crop that would have been cut down regardless

>this was over a 20 year period that they planted 272 million more trees

>That 14 million is less than 1% of the total woodland area in scotland

People wanna hate renewable energy so fucking bad.

deeply obsessed with the salmon edit by _olive_ridley on TikTok

isopod espionage

As a Lakota scholar, adding some very specific ways that land was stolen from us systematically in the U.S. Excerpts taken from Colin Calloway’s First Peoples, pages listed. This is not an exhaustive list, because we could fill a book with how much our land was stolen. Emphasis is my own.

- The Spanish believed they had a divine and royal mandate to reduce Indian peoples to submission. Spanish law required the conquistadors to read the Requerimiento to the Indians they encountered. The Requerimiento, worked out by theologians in 1513 at the request of the king of Spain, required Indians to “acknowledge the Church as the Ruler and Superior of the whole world,” the pope as high priest, and the king and queen of Spain as lords of their lands. If they did so, the Spaniards would “receive you in all love and charity, . . . leave you, your wives, and your children, and your lands, free without servitude, . . . and . . . not compel you to turn Christians.” But, the document continued,

‘…if you do not do this, and wickedly and intentionally delay to do so, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall forcibly enter into your country and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their Highnesses; we shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do all the harm and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him; and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their Highnesses, or ours, nor of these gentlemen who come with us.’

Read in Spanish to Indian people who understood neither its language nor its concepts, the Requerimiento became little more than a “ceremony of possession,” allowing the Spaniards to justify conquest — and any accompanying atrocities. (Calloway, 74)

- Permanent English settlement in New England began when the Pilgrims settled north of Cape Cod in 1620 and established Plymouth Colony. They found the coast of Massachusetts depopulated by an epidemic that had ravaged the area between 1616 and 1619. God, so the Pilgrims believed, had prepared the way for their coming by sending a plague among the Indians. (Calloway, 85)

- Once the United States had won its liberty from Britain, it began to build its own domain in the territory that Britain had transferred at the Peace of Paris in 1783 — lands inhabited by Indian peoples but which the United States now claimed by right of conquest. (…) The United States regarded its expansion as inevitable, even divinely ordained, and recognized that its growth would entail dispossessing the original Indian inhabitants. (Calloway, 206)

- However, a clear and consistent objective of the United States’ Indian policy from the end of the American Revolution to the Indian removals of the 1830s was the acquisition of lands between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, lands that the federal government bought “parcel by parcel.” Like Europeans before them, Americans not only acquired the land but also established the legal framework by which they, and not the Indians, would own it. (Calloway, 208)

- Iroquois people who had once dominated the northeastern United States were now confined to reservations in small areas of their traditional homelands or lived in exile in Canada. The Senecas once held some 4 million acres of western New York and Pennsylvania; now they lived on fewer than 200,000 acres divided into ten separate tracts. They rebuilt their communities but were under pressure from missionaries, land speculators, settlers, and the state and federal governments (Calloway, 249)

- The policy of removing Indian peoples from their eastern homelands to the West was implemented in the late 1820s, ’30s, and ’40s, but it originated in earlier periods when Americans had considered various solutions to the problem of what to do with Indians in the eastern United States. The government could try to destroy the Indians, assimilate them into American society, protect them on their ancestral lands, or remove them to more distant lands. Most Americans favored the last option as the only practical course. (…) In the winter of 1802–3, President Jefferson told Delaware and Shawnee delegates in Washington that he would “pay the most sacred regard to existing treaties between your respective nations and ours, and protect your whole territories against all intrusions that may be attempted by white people.” At the same time, Jefferson was implementing plans to dispossess the Indians of their lands. Jefferson and others easily solved the dilemma of how to take Indian lands with honor by determining that too much land was a disincentive for Indians to become “civilized.”(Calloway, 258)

- With ongoing white migration to the Pacific after the gold rush, California Indians struggled to remain on their traditional lands. Debris from mining and logging operations choked fishing streams; the newcomers’ fences and “property rights” kept Indians from places where they had formerly fished, hunted, and gathered. Cahuilla Indians sent a petition to the U.S. commissioner of Indian affairs in 1856, complaining that the Americans not only took their best farming and grazing lands but also diverted the water they needed for irrigation. In some instances, the water had been “wholly monopolized by the white settlers thereby depriving us of the most essential means for the successful cultivation of our crops,” and forcing them “to abandon portions of our improved lands greatly to the detriment and distress of our people.” (Calloway, 312)

- Also in 1877, the government forcibly removed members of the Ponca tribe from Nebraska to Indian Territory. (The Poncas’ land had been assigned to them by treaty in 1865 but was subsequently included in the reservation area ceded to the Sioux by the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1868.) (Calloway, 321)

- In 1887 Congress passed the Dawes or General Allotment Act to reduce reservations and allot lands to individual Indians as private property. (…) The new policy would terminate communal ownership, push Indians into mainstream society, and offer for sale “surplus” land not used by Indians. (Calloway, 377)

- The law remained in force from 1887 to 1934. Its main effect was to strip Indian people of millions more acres of land. (…) Their lands could now be taxed by the state in which they lived, and land transfers could be treated as individual sales of property, which allowed Americans to legally purchase even more Native land once its title was handed over to its allottee. (Calloway, 379)

-

The Dawes Allotment Act assigned tracts of land to Indian families and then made “surplus” reservation lands eligible for sale to non-Indians. This 1911 Department of the Interior poster advertises an estimated 350,000 acres of Indian land for sale. (Note the average prices.) Ironically, the person pictured in the poster is the Oglala chief Red Cloud, who fought to protect Lakota lands in the 1860s. (Calloway, 382)

- With their already reduced tribal domain further diminished and disrupted, most Indians living on allotted reservations endured increasing poverty, despondency, and discrimination. (Calloway, 389)

I could go on. Our land is still being stolen to this day by companies aided by the federal government. Our treaty rights have never been respected. As OP stated, cottagecore is only an extension of previous attitudes about Indigenous lands and the idea of “virgin wilderness”— There is no such thing. It is modern day Manifest Destiny.

If you want to try out gardening, research what is indigenous to your area, seasonal, and do not introduce invasive species. Do. Your. Research. And don’t forget whose stolen land you’re sitting on.

joe biden: how do i look in this chef hat, giuseppe?

giuseppe, the presidential butler: waifish and breedable as always, muy lord

joe biben: fabulous. pass me the Improbable Meat

i will have u all know i breathe nothing but the Finest Quality Airs. and they are loaded chock full with Nutrience

I live with her and I regret to inform everyone that she is just like this, no gas leak or drugs required

WOW

Lil buddys

teeeeething. graphite illustration from 2019

femalepentimento