The other wonderful thing about myth and folktale elements is that nearly every story is in segments, which can be taken apart and either recombined or included on their own. In this form they carry the same weight but their meaning often alters. I first grasped this at the age of about eleven, when I was allowed to read a scholarly book…which was mostly sixteen versions of the same Persian folktale–the one where the younger prince fetches the princess from the glass mountain–placed in such an order that, as the details of the story altered, you watched it changing from one sort of narrative (the trial of strength and valour) to another (the test of character), while the outline of the story itself never changed. This kind of thing fascinates me. When I was a student I imagine I caused Tolkien much grief by turning up to hear him lecture week after week, while he was trying to wrap his series up after a fortnight and get on with The Lord of the Rings (you could do that in those days, if you lacked an audience, and still get paid). I sat there obdurately despite all his mumbling and talking with his face pressed up to the blackboard, forcing him to go on expounding every week how you could start with a simple quest-narrative and, by gradually twitching elements as it went along, arrive at the complex and entirely different story of Chaucer’s Pardoner’s Tale–a story that still contains the excitement of the quest-narrative that seeded it. What little I heard of all this was wholly fascinating.
—  Diana Wynne Jones
The immorality of charging Israel of "genocide" ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

The immorality of charging Israel of “genocide”

The Center for Constitutional Rights has released an article that has been heavily promoted by the anti-Israel crowd who are pretending that it is a scholarly essay proving that Israel is guilty of “genocide” against the “Palestinian people.”

People who retweeted it include Linda Sarsour, Mondoweiss, Huwaida Arraf and others.

Casual readers of the article, heavily footnoted, would think that there is some real scholarship behind it. However, the article as a whole was written from the perspective that Israel is guilty ab initio of “genocide” and the sources that “prove” it were found afterwards.

Its centerpiece is that a leftist scholar of genocide studies and BDS supporter, Martin Shaw, has defined the 1948 war as genocidal, using an expansive definition that renders the word almost meaningless:

Sociologist Martin Shaw, one of the most distinguished modern scholars of genocide, has written, “We can conclude that pre-war Zionism included the development of an incipiently genocidal mentality towards Arab society.”[13] “Israel entered without an overarching plan, so that its specific genocidal thrusts developed situationally and incrementally, through local as well as national decisions. On this account, this was a partly decentred, networked genocide, developing in interaction with the Palestinian and Arab enemy, in the context of war.”

Shaw is saying that Jews, fighting a war where they were vastly outnumbered by Arab enemies who were explicitly genocidal towards them in their words and actions, are the ones who were guilty of “incremental” and “decentered” genocide. By that definition, nearly every war is genocidal and anyone who shoots any member of any group can be accused of “incremental genocide”.

All of this ignores that no one on the planet identified Palestinian Arabs as a “national group” in 1948. They were identified as simply Arabs. But to accuse Israel of genocide against all Arabs in 1948 is a charge too absurd even for anti-Israel “genocide scholars” to make, so they have retroactively accused Israel of targeting the destruction of a people who simply did not exist as a distinct group, a fundamental element of any definition of genocide.

Of course, the idea that the Jews who really were ethnically cleansed from Arab lands  were victims of genocide is not considered. That wasn’t “incremental” but a virtually total, planned elimination of a specifically defined group from the Arab world.

The fate of Israeli Jews would have been the same had they lost the war in 1948.

The CCR uses 1948 as its main argument that Jews are guilty of genocide, but it doesn’t stop there. It includes quotes from widely criticized pseudo-historian Ilan Pappe who also uses the term “incremental genocide” to describe Israeli actions. Its own late president Michael Ratner is also quoted using the meaningless phrase “incremental genocide.”

The article then descends into farce, by quoting an ad by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network claiming that 300 Holocaust survivors and descendants accused Israel of “genocide” during Operation Cast Lead [sic - the ad was about the 2014 Gaza War, not Cast Lead.]. Specifically, it quotes anti-Israel activist Naomi Wolf as saying, ‘I mourn genocide in Gaza because I am the granddaughter of a family half wiped out in a holocaust and I know genocide when I see it.“

If a tiny minority of Holocaust survivors and their descendants want to bizarrely accuse Israel of genocide, that is their right. But to give them more moral authority than the vast majority of survivors and descendants who find the word odious and immoral when applied to Israel proves that the CCR is not interested in a reasoned argument, but in anti-Israel propaganda disguised as research.

The CCR, incidentally, is funded by the Ford Foundation and George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, among others.

This article is so one-sided and so obviously deceptive that it discredits anything else that the CCR might be doing. Indeed, this article doesn’t shed light on the immorality of Israel as much as it does on the immorality of falsely accusing Israel of crimes, using a yardstick that it applies to no other nation.

(h/t Dani, Andrew)

Done with my ethics homework for the week!

We had to find an article in the newspaper that posed an ethical issue.
We then had to summarize the issue and why it was an issue and who it affects and identify the ethical issue in a single paragraph.

The next two paragraphs had to be summarized knowledge found while researching that ethical issue in other scholarly articles and relating that information to the original newspaper article.

The last paragraph then had to be a reflection on the ethical issue and a moral, personal conclusion that you’ve decided upon based on prior research and given information as well as what made you come to that opinion or decision.

Took me like an hour to do this. It was a lot easier than it probably sounds!
- Luna 🌛

about ;

THE STUDY CLUB is a place where you can discover a whole bunch of Studyblrs, all sorted out according to their graduation year and where they’re from, to befriend and follow! Every Studyblr, Appblr, Langblr, and/or academic-related blog is welcome to join and will be accepted.

how to join ;

  • reblog this post (likes are counted as bookmarks)
  • follow the admin
  • add this badge or a link directing to the page
  • fill out this form

other info ;

  • You can check out the page here! However, it’s still slowly under construction.
  • If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to send them here [contact tab] or here!
  • pls don’t let this flop ahaha

Hey everyone!! For my first masterpost, I decided to make one for science resources since I’ll need it for future exams and organizing these things will help me and I hope it’ll help you guys too! I included some social sciences as well as sources that have information about other subjects as well, which are marked by the * symbol. Also, I didn’t list many sources for biology/chemistry/physics categories since there’s more info about them in the “websites” category. Weird organization, I know, but I hope you like it!

Youtube channels:





Social sciences:

There’s nothing that pisses me off more than seeing a post in the Tudor tag (or The Tudors tag because lbh even though it’s historically inaccurate as fuck it’s still fun to watch) that calls Mary I “Bloody Mary.” Because, if you couldn’t tell from the posts made in our brief existence, there’s nothing more than contemporary propaganda about a Tudor woman making itself ‘fact’ that grinds our gears here at fuckyeahtudorwomen. So, much like Anne Boleyn was not a slut and Catherine Howard was not a vapid whore, Bloody Mary was not so Bloody.

Why then, is Mary I of England known as “Bloody Mary?”

The answer lies in the first paragraph: political propaganda. The term “bloody” was not applied to Mary until after her death and her Protestant half-sister Elizabeth I ascended to the throne in 1558. It was first applied to Mary by (as some historians believe) John Knox later in the year of her death in his book The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regimen of Women

Needing to once again break with the Catholic Church (and from Philip of Spain, who had been Mary’s… less-than-affectionate husband, who wanted to maintain ties with England by marrying it’s new queen), Elizabethan propagandists sought out to dirty Mary’s name. The sobriquet gained traction amongst the militant protestants who used the now “evil” queen to martyr those who she had burned as heretics. It was used again in John Foxe's Actes and Monuments, which was published in 1563, and featured and vilified the dead Mary in the name of glorifying the also dead Protestant martyrs and the very-much alive Elizabeth I. 

But she burned heretics, right?

Yes. The moniker Bloody Mary was given to her for the religious genocide of men of the Protestant faith during her reign. A nickname such as 'Bloody Mary’ would indicate that she had been the cause of thousands of deaths. In fact, only 287 Protestants were executed during her reign.

In comparison, her father, King Henry VIII, had been responsible for more than 57,000 deaths including men who were his close political allies and friends such as Sir Thomas More, Thomas Cromwell, and his wives, Anne Boleyn and Kitty Howard–not including the thousands killed in his wars against Spain and France. 

Her sister, Elizabeth I, while much more moderate than Mary and their father, slaughtered thousands of the Irish 'savages’ in her continuation of the Tudor conquest of the Emerald Isles and executed Puritan extremists. 

So, if one is to call her Bloody Mary, they must also include Bloody Harry and Bloody Bess in their lists, as well as 'Bloody’ essentially every Western European monarch of the era. 

So why do people still call her Bloody Mary? 

Because history is written by the winners, and Mary I was not one of the winners. Her Catholic rule over Protestant England only lasted five years, and her bad choice of marrying Spanish Philip cost her affection with her xenophobic people, and caused her to lose favor forty years later when he raised his armada against Elizabeth… who was one of history’s winners. Mary, because of her marital and parental ties to Spain, had her name blackened in England’s history forever. 

Addtionally, the cult of Elizabeth I is strong, and has been revived several times over the course of British history. While she was not immensely popular at the time of her passing, she became more beloved post-mortem as James I’s popularity took a nose dive, and again during the Napoleonic Wars, and yet again during the reign of Victoria. And if Elizabeth I was the winner, then Mary I had to continue to be the crazy loser pyscho-bitch Catholic who tried to ruin the bastion of Protestantism, the English domain. That perception of Mary continued well into the 20th century, and only within the last fifty years have historians tried to dismantle her “bloody” reputation. 

So what’s the truth about Mary, not so bloody? 

Well, she wasn’t crazy, that’s for one. In turn neglected and abused by her father Henry VIII and forcibly separated from her mother, Mary did not grow up in a happy home. At times she lived in near poverty. Modern historians have argued that she had an anxiety disorder and some go as far to postulate that she may have suffered from PTSD due to the abusive relationship she had with her father. 

In order to cling to her mother’s memory, Mary turned to her mother’s religion: Catholicism. This tie was made greater by her closest advisor and fellow Catholic, Eustace Chapuys, and their hope that Mary’s cousin, Charles V, would be more sympathetic to her because of her strong faith. This turned out not to be the case, and as England’s relationship with Spain grew strained and bargaining for Mary’s freedom to go to Charles’ court was no longer an option. As her hopes for both marriage and happiness dwindled, her Catholic zealotry increased. 

By the time that Mary was crowned in 1553, she was a very unwell woman. Received popularly at the beginning of her reign, she worked to overturn the ineffectual financial policies that had been enacted during her half-brother’s reign and tried to recover the English economy that had suffered under her father. During her five years on the throne, she laid the groundwork for the fiscal reform, naval policies, and colonial exploration that would later be lauded as Elizabeth’s achievements. 

Unfortunately, her favor with the people tanked when she married Philip 1554. She experienced several hysterical pregnancies in her attempts to make an heir, and in 1558 passed away clutching her bible, due to what is believed to have been uterine cancer, at the age of 41. 

My introduction to the studyblr community!

Hi, friends! I’m officially joining the studyblr community and I wanted to introduce myself a little bit :)

  • My name is Carey, I turn 21 in a little over two weeks, and I live in the USA
  • I’m going into my junior year at UNC Wilmington! 
    • I’m studying creative writing and taking some other English lit and Spanish classes. 
    • I’m planning on going to graduate school at either NYU, Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, Temple, or Haverford. (The first two are in New York City and the last three are in Philadelphia.)
  • I want to go into editing until I make it as a best-selling author :)
    • Fun fact: I’m currently the Editor-in-Chief of the Wake County chapter of the Odyssey Online! You can find my articles here.
  • I’m a workaholic and perfectionist
  • I have severe sushi and coffee addictions
  • In my free time, you can find me binge-watching something on Netflix or Hulu. 
    • Favorite shows: Friends, Full House, Gilmore Girls, Veronica Mars, Girl Meets World
    • Currently: rewatching Gilmore Girls
  • So far I have tagged my posts “Carey goes to uncw”. As the school year begins and I start posting my notes, desk, etc., I’m sure I’ll end up with more tags! When that happens, links will be on my blog.
  • I’ve been a fitblr for the past year, but I’ve always followed a few studyblrs like @emmastudies, @elkstudies, @academla, @penandanotebook, @studybuzz, and @kimberlystudies. There are a LOT more, I’ve always loved studyblrs from afar :)

I can’t wait to get more involved in the community and make friends! :)

hello, my name is renee and it’s super nice to meet you! 

i’m not really sure where to start so i guess we’ll start with stuff about myself!

i just graduated from high school and will be starting my freshman year in college this month!
i am currently 18 years old (but my birthday is january 20th!)
my timezone is eastern and i live in florida!
favorite classes include english, psychology, yearbook, and chemistry!
i love reading, writing, playing music, and hanging out with my friends!

now that you’re comfortable with me, let’s move on to stuff about my blog itself!

i will be posting your usual studyblr things! as well as my own lil personal photos (like selfies and photos from my day and such).
i joined because i want to be able to motivate myself to do well in school! especially since i’m starting my first year in college.
what i aim to get out of this are some bomb grades haha. i also hope to make a bunch of new friends who enjoy some of the same things i do!!

lastly, some of my studyblr inspirations and hopefully soon to be friends!!!

@acadehmic / @lycheestudy / @swanstudies / @scholarly / @studypool / @thecoffeedesk / @studyguideverified / @hermionegoals / @acedemics / @zeestudies / @academyeon / @jhonstudies / @steudious / @uglystudies

thank you guys so much for being such a welcoming community and i’m super excited to start posting my own stuff and getting to know everybody!


The Family of Henry VIII: An Allegory of the Tudor Succession, c. 1572

The inscription shows that the work was a gift for Francis Walsingham, to whose family its provenance can be traced. Along the bottom, it reads:


Inscription around the frame:


a father more than valiant

a rare and virtuous son

a zealous daughter

a virgin queen

Mixing portraiture and allegory, the painting shows Henry VIII, his three children, and Queen Mary’s husband, Philip of Spain, alongside figures from mythology. Henry sits on his throne in the centre, with his son Edward, the future Edward VI, kneeling beside him receiving the sword of justice.

Mary is shown next to Philip, with Mars, god of war, behind them, symbolising the wars they fought.

Elizabeth, by contrast, stands on the right of the picture holding the hand of Peace, who treads the sword of discord underfoot, as Plenty attends with her cornucopia. 

Painted just 15 years into Elizabeth’s reign, this portrait is an excellent example of royal propaganda. Henry, who bankrupted the country and was responsible for much of the religious upheaval, is shown as a benevolent figurehead, a jovial patriarch.

Edward, whose ineffectual rule was mostly controlled by the Seymour family, is being given the sword of justice, affirming that his reign and his Protestant reforms were just and true.

Mary, however, is shown with her Spanish husband, who was much disliked by the English population. They are followed by the god of war, emphasizing the violent aspects of her reign. It is from propaganda pieces like this that Mary would receive, and never lose, her nickname of Bloody Mary.

Elizabeth, on the other hand, is shown in an almost Messianic light, ushering in peace and prosperity. While Elizabeth was an effective ruler in her own right, and was able to balance the shifting political and religious tides for much of her reign, she also owed much to those who came before her.

i need some help (again)!

hey, everyone! you guys were awesome in helping me with my last fake research poll. i definitely need some help again with another one! 

again, anyone can take this poll and it’s only 2 easy questions. you don’t even need to own a pet to take it even though it’s supposed to be for “pet owners.” this is just a fake survey that i need to add to my final poster board!

i’ll do the same thing i did last time: 

  • take the poll
  • let me know what you said for question 1
  • i’ll check out your blog and there’s a 98% chance i’ll follow you!

thank you to everyone in advance! if we can get this to 100 responses by tomorrow evening, i’m willing to do a promo post. (i just need to get this out of the way!) 

Makeup during the Tudor and Elizabethan Periods

Despite popular belief, make up was not fashionable during most of Henry VIII’s reign. There was a heavy emphasis on natural beauty–therefore cosmetics of that time were developed to emphasize (and some instances, create the illusion of) natural beauty. 

Cosmetics, for the most part, were not of English design. Instead, the development of cosmetics in Western Europe were directly tied to the Crusades. Makeup had been created and used as a visible sign of status and material wealth in the Middle East as early as 3000 BC in Egypt. The perfumes made in the lands the crusaders invaded began making their way back to England in the 1300s, and soon fragrances such as rose, water lily, and violet became extremely popular. Kohl was used to darken eyelashes, and rouge made from ochre colored lips and cheeks. 

As time went on, the Europeans also began developing skin creams made from honey, beeswax and sesame seed oil to soften skin and create the sought-after illusion of great natural beauty–onto which kohl and rouge would be applied to also enhance this “natural” look. 

So while Elizabeth I was known for her white makeup and dramatic blushes and lips, her earlier portraits have her looking like this:

Rather undramatic for a woman whose likeness would be recorded as this, less than fifty years later:

Woah, Liz. Lay off the bleach. 

So, why the vast change in fashion? 

Well, it was directly tied into Elizabeth’s political image as the Virgin and eternally-young queen. As the queen regnant, Elizabeth was a trendsetter. As went the queen, as went the ladies of court. As went the ladies of court… you get the idea. As Elizabeth got older, she relied on heavy white makeup to hide her wrinkles (and smallpox scars) and create the image of the eternally youthful virgin. The rouging of her lips and cheeks only enhanced her paleness, as well as the dying of her graying hair with henna.

But that wasn’t the only political implication of paleness. A pale complexion was an upper-class achievement. Working class women and peasant women would be forced outside to do their work, and their tanned skin would be a mark of their class. Pale skin showed class superiority, not only over poor Englishwomen, but over ‘savage’ Irishwomen, and as the slave trade began to boom–as a show of the superiority of white over black, and a clear demarcation of race as a dichotomy of elegance vs savagery and, eventually, good vs evil. 

Unfortunately, the makeup these women (and men) used to conceal their natural skin colors was made from a mixture of white lead and vinegar, and was, as one would assume, quite poisonous. In another unhealthy trend, women would often be bled in order to achieve paleness. 

Soon the pale trend spread to hair color, as well, and many women dedicated hours to bleaching and dying their hair yellow and red, or for the extremely wealthy, cutting their hair and purchasing elaborate wigs to more closely mimic their wigged monarch.

Which was how from the reign of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, the 'ideal’ women went from something like this:

to this:

Disabled Black History: Shining A Light on Disabled Black Authors & Their Work

Disabled Black History: Shining A Light on Disabled Black Authors & Their Work

External image

In continuing with the theme of Black History Month 2016 by shining a bright light on disabled Black authors, this week will focus on the literary works of disabled black trailblazers from the past and present, young and old.

Searching for literature written by and/or share the stories of disabled Black people can be a needle in a haystack situation:  these bodies of work are not easily found,…

View On WordPress

Made with WordPress
The power of language in Shakespeare’s plays resides more in variation than in regularity. There is a robust physicality and even muscularity in his speeches, which can be as jagged and syncopated as jazz. Indeed, I recommend that actors playing Shakespeare look to music for inspiration. Some of Shakespeare’s voices are lilting, melodious, or flutelike; others are relentlessly hammering and percussive; still others are rough, insolent, and zigzagging, like a bebop saxophone.
—  Camille Paglia, “Teaching Shakespeare to Actors,” as included in Susannah Carson’s Living With Shakespeare


While Anne of Cleves was Mary’s third stepmother, she was only one year older than Mary herself. The ‘lucky’ one of Henry’s wives, Anne survived Henry and died the year before Mary, ensuring lasting ties between Anne and her erstwhile stepchildren. When she passed in 1557, Mary, then Queen of England, had Anne buried with full honors at Westminster Abbey and openly wept during the ceremony.

However, the relationship got off to a shaky start. Anne arrived in England shortly after Christmas 1539, and married Henry January 6, 1540, and yet there is no proof that Anne and Mary met before Easter 1540. (Both Linda Porter and David Loades assert in their books that Mary was present at Henry’s wedding to Anne, but there is no proof that Mary was actually there, although it can be argued that it can be assumed that she would be.) 

In the spring of 1540, Henry was about to pursue a divorce from Anne. To make Easter more sufferable (in his eyes), he requested that Mary come and attend to Anne and stay in her household. This infuriated Anne and she let it be known. 

But why?

The answer despite how it is portrayed on The Tudors, wasn’t religion. Despite having a staunchly Lutheran brother and brother-in-law, Anne of Cleves was raised mostly by her mother, Maria of Jülich-Berg, a strict Catholic, and Anne shared her mother’s faith (although a reformed version of it) despite  living in Protestant Cleves. 

Historian Retha Warnicke purports that Anne, who, due to her mother’s position against the education of women, was largely unaware of Mary’s unique position as a royal bastard, and was offended by her husband’s illegitimate child’s presence at court. 

However, the tense situation between Anne of Cleves and Mary I was quickly dissolved. The reasons why are lost to history, but one can reason that Anne had been informed of Mary’s situation and the two women (again, so close in age) were able to commiserate on being tossed out of Henry’s favor, and could later relate to the humiliation of Henry’s rejection. It’s also indicated that Mary treated the Catholic-in-all-but-name Anne with considerable respect, since both women were not allowed to openly practice their faith. Regardless, the young women became good friends. 

After Henry annulled his marriage to Anne the two continued to be good friends; Mary never treated Katherine Howard with the same respect she showed Anne and in 1543, Anne was licensed by Henry to visit her ex-stepchildren in court. They were able to see each other with relative frequency thanks to Anne’s position as Henry’s “beloved sister." 

After Henry’s death the two saw each other infrequently, and if they had corresponded, the letters have been lost to history. Both women were dealing with different pressures from Edward VI’s reign and the Seymour regency. Anne’s were financial–the Seymours no longer wished to provide the lavish lifestyle that Henry had, and the ill-educated Anne had a horrible time managing her money. Mary’s were religious, her Catholic faith putting her in constant opposition to Edward’s staunch and often bloody reformist policies. Both had to tread lightly. 

But when Mary became queen in 1553, Anne rode in the procession alongside Princess Elizabeth in a chariot lined with cloth of silver and sat at the new queen’s head table at the banquet. Mary, aware of Anne’s financial situation, returned her to the lifestyle she had grown accustomed to after divorcing Henry VIII. Both women could then openly convert back to Catholicism. 

When Anne died at the age of forty-one in 1557, Mary, ”our most dearest and entirely beloved sovereign lady“ was the overseer of her will.