respondirk asked:

kinda irrelevent question but what are your headcanon hs kid ethnicities?

jake (polynesian) + jane (black, jewish) ==> john (jewish), jade (polynesian, black)

roxy (indian latina) + dirk (black) ==> dave (afro latino), rose (indian)

but im open to others always (except the striders being anythin other than black (they use aave and the n word) and the harleyenglishes being anything but polynesian (they literally hail from a polynesian island))

#antiblack slurs mention

anonymous asked:

I was in preschool and I still remember this, I was friends with this girl and she brought a teddy bear to school one day and I said can I see him and she said,no he doesn't like black people I'm not black, I'm Indian, but that was really fucked up.

u right, that is really fucked up. i’m sorry that happened to you my friend.

“I’m flabbergasted when I go to a fashion show and I don’t see a black model or an Indian model or an Asian model or anyone of color in the front row,” says Tailly. “It’s 2015, brands should take the memo. The buying power of those minorities is enormous—why are we still not represented enough?” While fashion is slowly becoming more diverse, it’s still remarkably white-washed—and one reason for the glacial pace, posits Tailly, is that the focus has solely been on changing front-facing fashion professionals (ie. models) rather than the industry as a whole. “The more diverse people working behind the scenes in fashion who have the power to book models, the more diverse faces we’re likely to see in magazines,” says Tailly. “As a black person, when I collaborate with a magazine, I’m more likely to want to book a black model. It’s a delicate subject but I think it’s natural to gravitate towards a model that looks like you, that you can relate to. So if you’re blond-haired and blue-eyed, you’re probably more likely to book a model that looks like that too.”


In any industry, really. 

Marriage licenses came about in the late 19th century to prevent mixed-race marriages. That should be appalling to anyone, and is in my opinion the strongest argument to privatize marriage.

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos.

At the heart of it all, predictably, is the urge to control the lives of others. White people might marry black people! Horror of horrors. Therefore, the state must get involved. No doubt these arguments in favor of more government meddling were made with an overlying patina of “freedom.” Just as the modern anti-immigration crowd today argues that we must destroy freedom in order to save it, the old racist proponents of government marriage likely argued that we must abolish freedom in marriage or the “Negro agitatuhs” and their dusky-skinned allies will destroy freedom. Conservative “logic” at its best.