scholarly

Artists and poets naturally have more scope than have thinkers because their public is at least a hundred times greater. Yet what did the public think of Mozart and Beethoven during their lifetime?
—  On this day in 1813, Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 premiered in Vienna.  Here, Schopenhauer criticises the public’s ‘deplorable lack of judgement’ in appreciating thinkers and artists of ‘genuine merit.’
Robots vs the middle class: everyone's endangered, white people less so

On Common Dreams, Paul Buchheit rounds up a ton of scholarly/economic papers on the ways that automation is coming to employment niches occupied by well-educated middle-class professionals, who face the same dilemma their “low-skilled” industrial colleagues have been living through for three decades and counting.

The most important takeaway is that lower-middle-class jobs are more threatened than the high-middle jobs (“Java application developer, internet security specialist, nurse practitioner, dental hygienist, statistical analyst, data mining specialist, physical therapist”), and that the high-middle is more likely to be occupied by the people who’ve historically sat atop the economic pyramid (white people) while the low-middle tier is occupied by people from traditionally underpaid groups (brown people, women).

https://boingboing.net/2016/12/07/robots-vs-the-middle-class-ev.html

Need more folks to follow!

I’m only following 9 blogs right now, but would love to have more come up on my dashboard. I would rather you not be an aesthetic blog. :)

Here’s a little list of some stuff I’d like to see stuff about; feel free to like or reblog if your stuff is relevant, but not listed!

  • Jesus of Nazareth
  • Mary Magdalene
  • Theology involved in Christianity
  • Saints & Apostles
  • (Re-)Discovering Christianity
  • Scholarly and other Educational Resources
  • Christian Witchcraft
  • Christo-Paganism
  • Baptist (the denomination)
  • Baptism

anonymous asked:

thought i'd jump in and describe myself!! i'm an incarnate archangel. i used to be in charge of a massive library when i was still in heaven, but it was the akashic records. i was very silent and definitely the "scholarly" type i guess aha, and i believe i wasn't very human looking + rather featureless. other angelkin remember me only really venturing outside in the winter and the snow. also heavily associated with silver jewelry and white robes

you sound like a beautiful being!! it’s so interesting that you were in charge of the records.

nature.com
Researchers baffled by nationalist surge
Economic woes wrought by globalization are only part of the cause.

Nationalist sentiment is spreading faster than Monsanto seeds - Trump’s pseudo-win - nationalist parties rising in popularity across Europe. The “scholarly” article above just recapitulates many possible reasons, none all that compelling to me.

For clarity, I personally like to consult with evolutionary biology and Occam’s Razor. Basic human behavior is a constant over human lifetimes. Humans have been around a couple million years, but democratic government barely 1/10,0000th of that, so it’s a bit of an evolutionary experiment. Humans, like prairie dogs, tend to be fear-based and susceptible to denying reality and blaming others. Democracy requires more. Trump, like other nationalist “leaders” and Hitler, instinctively know how to fan people’s fear, deny reality with lies, and provide people scapegoats for their woes. Humans lap it up, as it assuages their pain; they can replace their pity party with anger. But, there’s a price they pay in allegiance and group think. But that’s OK too with many, because being told what is right and what to do makes life easy in a way. Were that not true, religion could not survive. And so we predominantly have had authoritarian governments and dogmatic religions through human history. And now we have Trump and his evil cohort. It did not have to come to this, but it seems the haters were much more inspired than the non-haters, who did not care enough about other people to bother to vote in many successive elections.

a lot of what i do as a scholar of recent/contemporary literature is just to like… bring things together like i don’t wanna say i’m writing the scholarly equivalent of NYT trend pieces but i’m not NOT

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
2

yes i got a bit carried away with the title 🌺 (title inspired by @studyguideverified’s bullet journal post) i didn’t structure my spread prior this week, because I thought dividing spaces dedicated for each day was limiting. I liked the freeness of this method but it was harder to plan ahead. will try a different layout next week!!

favorite studyblrs of the day: @studypool @nidhiartemis @coffeeteafocus @studyquill 

4

Books on Science Fiction and Black Speculative Critical Analysis

1. The Black Imagination: Science Fiction, Futurism and the Speculative (Black Studies and Critical Thinking) (2011) by Sandra Jackson - This critical collection covers a broad spectrum of works, both literary and cinematic, and issues from writers, directors, and artists who claim the science fiction, speculative fiction, and Afro-futurist genres.

2. Black Space: Imagining Race in Science Fiction Film (2008) by Adilifu Nama - The first book-length study of African American representation in science fiction film, Black Space demonstrates that SF cinema has become an important field of racial analysis, a site where definitions of race can be contested and post-civil rights race relations (re)imagined.

3. Race in American Science Fiction (2011) by Isiah Lavender III - Race in American Science Fiction offers a systematic classification of ways that race appears and how it is silenced in science fiction, while developing a critical vocabulary designed to focus attention on often-overlooked racial implications. These focused readings of science fiction contextualize race within the genre’s better-known master narratives and agendas.

4. Horror Noire: Blacks in American Horror Films from 1890s to Present (2011) by Robin Means Coleman - Horror Noire presents a unique social history of blacks in America through changing images in horror films. Throughout the text, the reader is encouraged to unpack the genre’s racialized imagery, as well as the narratives that make up popular culture’s commentary on race. Offering a comprehensive chronological survey of the genre, this book addresses a full range of black horror films, including mainstream Hollywood fare, as well as art-house films, Blaxploitation films, direct-to-DVD films, and the emerging U.S./hip-hop culture-inspired Nigerian “Nollywood” Black horror films.

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:

Websites:

Chemistry:

Physics:

Biology:

Social sciences:

The Utter and Egregious Fallacy of “That Was Just What Happened In Medieval Times”

Right, so. I’m angry all over again and I’m going to be angry for a while, because if I see one more idiot defending the rape scene over the fact that “that was just what happened in medieval times,” I am going to put a brick through my computer screen. This won’t be as long or as in-depth as I want it to be, since I have to go to work soon, but my medieval historian buttons have been pushed to a sufficient degree that I have to make some response to all this. So without further ado:

  • Legislation to protect women and children was an idea as far back as the seventh goddamn century (and before), but it certainly appeared in the western Christian/Latin legal canon with Adamnan of Iona’s “Law of the Innocents.” Christianity itself modified existing Greco-Roman social codes to give women (who had no rights at all in antiquity) a surprising amount of protection and recognition in marriage and society. Was this always followed? Of course not. But you can bet your ass it was a thing, and one of the reasons early Christianity was so suspiciously received, due to its lenient treatment of women, slaves, the poor, the leprous, and other outcasts.
  • On that note, we call them “the Dark Ages” because we are a bunch of Eurocentric assholes who figure all of civilization collapsed when Rome fell. Yes, Western Europe wasn’t doing so hot, but everywhere else was flourishing – socially, culturally, religiously, artistically.
  • The Vikings were forward-thinking as hell with their legal treatment of women (so, for that matter, were the Welsh). Both cultures allowed a wife to separate from her husband with no penalty if he was abusing her, and in the Vikings’ case, he would be shamed and socially ridiculed for being such a low-down tool as to mistreat a woman. The Vikings did not fuck around. And among the Welsh, maternal inheritance and property rights counted just as much as paternal.
  • Rape was physically and brutally punishable in England from at least the 11th century on. Prior to the Norman Conquest, it was treated as an offense for which one had to pay weregild – literally “man money” – the same as when someone was murdered. Post-Norman Conquest, you got your goddamn dick chopped off, the same as thieves lost a hand and oathbreakers lost tongues. You see the pattern? It was a serious crime. People weren’t just out raping all and sundry. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (otherwise not fond of William) eulogized him as a “violent but very wise” man, and praised him for making England so safe that an unarmed man or maiden girl could travel the roads without fear of robbery or molestation.
  • If you were a dude that everyone hated, you got accused of rape and mistreatment of women. It wasn’t cool.
  • Due to the teachings of the third century Roman physician Galen, it was believed that a woman could not conceive if she didn’t have an orgasm. No, this does not mean that medieval couples were trying positions from the Kama Sutra every night (the Church still had strict guidelines on when and where and how you were supposed to do the do) but it also doesn’t mean that women’s pleasure was some completely mystical and/or unthinkable idea.
  • Likewise, early consummation DID happen (Margaret Beaufort, Eleanor of Castile) but it was frowned on. The Church imposed penalties on husbands who consummated their marriage too early, and while noble girls were generally married around 14-16, commoner girls were about the same age as today (early-mid twenties) and could often marry for love, depending on their social station.
  • While marital rape and abuse was not legally recognized or classified as a crime, that didn’t mean it went unpunished. Since most noble marriages were business transactions, that meant the wife was an investment of some value, and a sure way to piss off her menfolk (and the Pope) was to mistreat and abuse her. King Philip II of France spent years under interdict and excommunication for his appalling treatment of his second wife, Ingeborg, and was ultimately forced to capitulate and take her back. The Pope would in fact often champion the causes of mistreated noble wives (usually to force concessions out of her husband, but still). Annulment and separation, while unusual, were not completely impossible, and did happen – one of the chief grounds for it being granted was mistreatment and abuse.
  • Furthermore, the code of chivalry specified honorable treatment for noblewomen. Of course, this did not mean it was lived out in practice, and common women were fair game, but there was in fact an existing and well-known legal framework for how you were supposed to treat your womenfolk – Ramsay would have been as reviled in the medieval era as he is to our modern sensibilities. Medieval people weren’t different from us and out rape rape rapin the livelong day. In fact, I would hazard a guess that it’s gotten MORE common now that we, you know, no longer chop the goddamn dicks off people and they generally skate with no consequence.
  • Besides, the “the medieval era was dark and barbaric” attitude relies on the mistaken narrative of “progress,” i.e. things were terrible back then and have been constantly evolving to this point in time, where we no longer do the gross things they did. DING DONG YOU ARE WRONG! This is a historiographical fallacy to excuse our own atrocities and act like the cost of the modern world was “necessary” for “developing” us to who we are now, and that all the bloodshed, death, colonialism, world wars, etc can’t possibly be as bad as what they did Back In The Day. Saying “people got raped back then!” is implicitly saying “and they don’t get raped today, because Progress.” It’s incredibly stupid and hypocritical. So don’t even start that shit with me.
  • Last, these are not real events magically happening outside anyone’s control. This is a television show written by 21st century people. They have repeatedly used rape as a clumsy plot device in the past. They continued to do so and twisted it this time to happen to a beloved major character purely for the self-admitted purpose of shock value. They planned it since season 2 and waited for Sophie Turner to come of age so they could shoot it legally. So acting like GoT is this pseudo “medieval world” where nobody had any control over the fact that Sansa was put in a position to be violated by Ramsay is again, laughably facetious. They manipulated the story, characters, and narrative to be sure that this happened. They made a writing choice. Hence we are going to criticize that writing choice. We have as much right to do that as they do to create it in the first place. It’s called consequences. “Free speech” does not mean you get to say whatever you want and no one can challenge or correct you. It means the government can’t put you in jail or otherwise legally harass you with the mechanisms of the state for it. Someone else using their free speech to call you a fucking idiot is perfectly legal.
  • In conclusion: No, the medieval era was not some beacon of rights and happiness for women. Terrible things could and did happen. But they excited just as much public outrage as they did today, and were oftentimes more harshly punished (at least if you were noble born, because CLASSISM! Take a shot). Every bit of development and progress we HAVE made was extremely hard won. But quit acting like it was just an inevitable, normal, and necessary fact of life in medieval times. Because you know nothing, Jon Snow.

I made a lil something after watching this TED talk by Clint Smith (x) It’s quite short but its message is so so important. I promise that the 4.18 minutes you spend watching it will be worth it.

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. 

In 2012, Harvard University said the growing cost of journal subscriptions was an “untenable situation” for the school’s library, which shelled out $3.5 million a year for them.

“Prices for online content from two providers have increased by about 145% over the past six years, which far exceeds not only the consumer price index, but also the higher education and the library price indices,” an internal Harvard memo read.

It’s not just Harvard struggling with these costs. An analysis from the University of South Florida found that “American research libraries spent 227% more for their journal collections in 2002 than in 1986. The CPI increased 57% during the same period.”

The frustrating irony is that universities have to pay these sky-high prices despite the fact they are the institutions funding the research in the journals. Similarly, taxpayers spend $140 billion every year supporting research they can’t easily access.

16/08/2016 I’ll remember the day when I’ve received a letter from Hong Kong. I’ve never been happier.🌿 It’s the best continuation of internship in South Korea.🇰🇷