Today is a good day to remember Dr.
Joseph “Joe” Medicine Crow. Dr Crow was as American as heroes come. He was the last Warchief of the Crow Tribe having completed all 4 necessary acts of bravery. During the Second World War he disarmed an enemy without killing him, captured an enemy, led a successful war party and, needing only one more to complete the set he stole nazi officers’ horses. He’s said to have ridden the 50 horses out of the camp wearing his feathers and singing his war song and so surprised the soldiers that nobody knew what to do.
He went into battle with his eagle feathers and face painted and came home to receive a masters degree and honorary doctorate. He studied the history of The Crow Nation and was the last person to talk to someone who had been at Little Bighorn/greasy grass. He founded health and education centers for his tribe and fought for the preservation of the Grizzly bear’s habit, he called the bears his brothers. As befits a man who distinguished himself in every aspect of his life, Dr. Medicine Crow received the medal of freedom from president Obama. He passed away a year ago today.
We should all count more coup on fascists and learn more Native history and generally try to be more like Dr. Medicine Crow #native #history #nodapl
April 9, 1968: Coretta Scott King is pictured with her daughter, Bernice King, during the funeral of her husband, civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia.
(I don’t own/ didn’t record these) Also, they’re all on YouTube (if any don’t work, I can probably get a different video for you from somewhere else, just send a message. I have a heck of a lot of links) All links working as of 14/06/17
Hey Koizumi, I was wondering if you could explain why is Edward ‘Longshanks’ called “King Edward I” if he was actually the fourth King of England named “Edward”.
There are several reasons for this Hinata-kun. The short answer is that all previous “King Edwards of England” had reigned during the Anglo-Saxon period and by the time Longshanks had risen to the throne they were a distant memory. So there was a clear distinction between him and earlier Edwards. However this is only the beginning of a more clear anser.
We need to remember that just because historians today are in general agreement and consistent when it comes to labels, that doesnt meant his was the case for then contemporary writers. Actually there are a few sources towards the end of King Edwards life that give him a regnal number but they mistakingly call him Edward the Thirdbecause they had overlooked the brief and unfortunate reign of the teenage king Edward the Martyr. For most of Edward I’s reign he was simply referred to as “King Edward” and if people felt the need to specify him it was usually as “King Edward, son of King Henry”.
The regnal numbering of “Edward the First” started to become popular in 14th century accounts. This is because by that point there had been two more King Edwards, namely the son of Longshanks and his grandson. Specifying which “Edward” one was talking about by identifying his father was no longer practical because you now have two kings who were “Edward, son of Edward”. Writers thus decided to specify them by “1st, 2nd and 3rd” and on occasion might add “Since the [Norman] Conquest” to specify they were not referring to the Anglo-Saxon kings
You can sorta compare it to how he wouldve been unfamiliar with the modern names for his dynasty, Plantagenet. The word “Plantagenet” was only coined in reference to a dynasty in the 14th century and it was only during histories written during the Tudor period that you start to see it used more generally.
The other thing thats interesting about the name “King Edward” however is that its actually the only name that you see with both Anglo-Saxon kings as well as post-Conquest kings. Back in the 1200s the name “Edward” was seen as a rough Anglo-Saxon name and would be seen as somewhat alien the way names like “Æthelred” seem alien to modern English-speakers. But King Henry III was known to be a rather religious person and in particular was devoted to the saintly cult of his predecessor Edward the Confessor. He adopted Edward the Confessor as his patron saint and built shrines and churches in his name so naming his firstborn son after him was seen as yet another way for Henry to honor his favorite saint.
Oftentimes in leftist circles you can hear folks
decrying liberals and liberalism. If you ask them why they hate liberalism,
most of them will point you in the direction of Mao’s Combat Liberalism to
better understand them, but this is a mistake. Combat Liberalism is effectively
an internal memo, warning other communists of the need to avoid liberalism lest
it be detrimental to their work. It details results of that ideology, but not
causes. To that end, I’ve compiled a brief description of what liberalism is
and why it’s bad.
The ideology of liberalism is denoted by three
Free-market capitalism. Liberals believe that
capitalism is good, or at least “the best we have”. While liberals
may argue over how much intervention in the market is necessary, they all agree
on the fundamental goodness of capitalism, and that it should be tweaked rather
The state and representative
“democracy”. Liberals believe that the state is good, and that
representative democracy is an effective means of creating social change and an
acceptable level of participation. They reject any aims outside of the state,
and try to co-opt movements towards state action (e.g. electing Democrats).
Nonviolence: The liberal insistence on
“nonviolent” protest (usually invoking a whitewashed history of Dr.
King) is largely derived from state-worship. They see the state as the only
legitimate user of force, and all others as violent looters and rioters;
because of that, they refuse to even consider violence as a method of protest or direct action (e.g. antifascism).
Indirect action and representative
problem-solving: Linked to the lionization of representative democracy,
liberals care little for direct action, even as indirect as blocking a street
for a few hours. They believe that the power to change things is vested solely
in those representatives, and that the common person shouldn’t bother; direct
action, to them, is illegitimate for the same reason as violence.
A focus on individual rather than class politics.
Liberals see all social issues as issues primarily affecting individuals,
rather than groups. In other words, they lack a class analysis; they see
racism, for example, as the result of individual prejudices and
“meanness” and something to be fixed at that level, rather than a
system of structural violence against non-white peoples aimed at dividing the
Liberalism, as an ideology, is dangerous. These
three tenets combine to form an analysis that is insufficient to encompass the
whole of the enemy, and more importantly a praxis that is ineffective at
combating it. It infects activists and ordinary workers alike, and railroads
them into believing that they cannot change a society that benefits only those
at the top. It railroads them into believing that the burdens they bear cannot
be thrown off, and stands in the way of our collective liberation. It must be
combated, for it is at the root of the struggle.
I found this book – more of a booklet, really – in a protective plastic sleeve in an old bookstore. This is a copy of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde that was printed in 1894. 1894!
This book is older than Bram Stoker’s Dracula!
But they were selling it for $15.00! So I bought it because one, I love that story, and two, that’s a piece of history right there.
Chuck Norris shadowboxed and thats what gave Tamerlane his limp leg.
Tamerlane is the common name in the West for the 14th century Turko-Mongolic ruler named Timur born to the aristocratic Barlas clan. The name “Tamerlane” is derived from Timur-i-leng which means “Timur the Lame”. While we can have fun with Chuck Norris Facts in actual history Timur acquired his famous limp leg during a botched attempt at stealing livestock.
Hey hold on, if Timur was born into a family of minor nobility then what was he doing working as a sheep-rustling bandit?
Well you see Makoto, the fortunes of Timur plunged early in his life after he temporarily ended up on the losing end of internecine steppe warfare. For a period of time Timur did live as a wanderer with his brother-in-law Husayn who would go from being his closest friend to a fierce rival.
However it is not universally accepted that Timur’s injuries originated from a failed sheep-rustling attempt. The origins for this story come from the writings of the Syrian Arab author Ahmad ibn Arabshah. Ibn Arabshah was a first critic of Timur because he saw first hand the devastation wrought by his invading and pillaging armies. The story that Timur was once a lowly bandit may originate from ibn Arabshah’s desire to depict Timur as a wicked tyrant whose entire life consisted of destruction.