Walked by Husky

mmmsammishes asked: I just saw your Gar photoset and I was like, are Gars and Coelacanths related? (Literally the extent of my knowledge on fish is strictly from playing Animal Crossing)

koryos:

It’s ok, I learned to ID a lot of fish through playing Okami. Thank god for the No Cartoon Fish trope.

Now, on to your question. Gars and coelacanths are not actually closely related, even though both are actually known as “living fossil” species due to the characteristics they share with primitive/extinct species of fish.

Coelacanths actually belong to a class called Sarcopterygii, the lobe-finned fishes, while gars belong to the class called Actinopterygii, the ray-finned fishes. Here is a diagram of the difference between lobe and ray fins:

image

The most important thing to notice is that the lobe fin (on the left) has dense bony projections within its fin, while the ray fin (on the right) merely has the slender fin ray bones. This is REALLY important, because lobe-finned fishes would later use those bony projections to make an entirely new type of limb… a foot!

image

Hell yeah, feet!!!

In fact, if you look at a fish phylogeny, you will come to realize that not only are we more closely related to lobe-finned fishes like the coelacanth than ray-fins like the gar, our clade- the tetrapods- is actually still nested within Sarcopterygii. In other words, you are still technically a fish.

image

That’s right- we are hot, sexy, teleostomic fish. And we are more closely related to coelacanths than they are to gars.

genoshaisforlovers:

Don’t bring a gun to a Goddess fight, the Goddess will just take it and kidney blast you

genoshaisforlovers:

Don’t bring a gun to a Goddess fight, the Goddess will just take it and kidney blast you

krakenqueen:

funnywildlife:

This Bald Eagle was chasing the Great Blue Heron away from the eggs in her nest. It wasn’t trying to kill the Heron or she would have done so long before this once in a lifetime shot was captured by Owen Deutsch

The artist in me loves the fact that we have two nearly similarly sized birds in the same pose for a detailed comparison between the anatomical differences. It’s like, I’m having an art boner right now.

krakenqueen:

funnywildlife:

This Bald Eagle was chasing the Great Blue Heron away from the eggs in her nest. It wasn’t trying to kill the Heron or she would have done so long before this once in a lifetime shot was captured by Owen Deutsch

The artist in me loves the fact that we have two nearly similarly sized birds in the same pose for a detailed comparison between the anatomical differences. It’s like, I’m having an art boner right now.

(Source: wildography.co.uk, via koryos)

medievalpoc:

aseantoo submitted to medievalpoc:

Unknown artist, possibly of the Brazilian School
Black Artist Completing a Portrait of a White Female Aristocrat
Brazil (early 1700s)
Oil on canvas
Philadelphia private collection
[x], [x]
I was thrilled at first to see this image - a pre-modern Black woman artist, portrayed at work! But then I saw this:
Although this black artist appears to be wearing a dress, it is likely to be a male figure. As the scholar Sheldon Cheek explains, the artist wears an earring and a silver collar, both common articles worn by black male servants/slaves in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, the collar traditionally indicating slave status. Women rarely, if ever, wore the silver collar. The artist also appears to be wearing a silver “shackle” on the arm.
Ugh. Pretty awful.

I think we should all be pretty critical of what’s written about this painting. Especially the part you’ve quoted above about how they have assigned the gender of the artist in the painting. I find it bizarre that something that is supposed to indicate enslaved status (not gender) somehow trumps this person wearing women’s clothing (that’s also a woman’s hat to the best of my knowledge).
The Americas, including Brazil, have a long tradition of transgender and third gender people. This is one of those images from the past that falls quite easily through the cracks because it is a collection of “exceptions”; it doesn’t fit nicely into categories that have been created and therefore, it’s more or less ignored.
If anyone’s hesitant to be critical, maybe you should also note that both the articles linked above make claims that slavery in Brazil was “less harsh” than other places. What???
How many of our assumptions are being projected onto this painting? Are the “contradictions” present in it a product of the painting itself, or is the problem with the categories we try to place it in? How many layers do we have to fight uphill through when we even look at this image? After all, History teaches us:
women weren’t artists
Black people weren’t artists
Black people were enslaved
Enslaved people didn’t do anything of worth
Transgender, genderqueer and third gender people didn’t exist before the 1960s
white people control how Black images are perceived, but not the other way around
gender must be immediately perceivable and fit into our categories of “male” and “female”
^ So this is the baggage we bring with us when we look at this image. We look at this painting, and we actively search for indicators that allow us to continue to believe the above assumptions.
If we take away those assumptions, if we try to move past them and see this portrait with new eyes, what are we left with? Whose History do we see here? Maybe it’s mine; maybe it’s yours. 

If we step away from skin color, the artist is wearing a doublet with slashes and puffs. This could be clothing for either a male or female person. I’m not real good at doublets, but I think they’re usually high neck designs, so being able to see the necklace or collar is a bit odd. I seem to recall that sometimes male doublets go to knee length, so the doublet isn’t a strong indicator of gender.The artist’s subject looks to be wearing a mantua or other loose gown. Again, this isn’t a strictly gendered piece of clothing, tho the low cut over the breast suggests this one is meant for women. The hairstyle is one I’d probably assume is for women, but 1700s hair is hard to judge, and I don’t see anything that makes the style definitely feminine.Collar style necklaces have been a popular design in pretty much any fashion era I can think of. I can’t recall seeing any 1700s examples like the artist wears, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything.The earring could be a man’s single earring, or part of a pair. We can’t see the other side of the artist’s head, and even if the artist wore two, that doesn’t automatically mean the artist is female.

medievalpoc:

aseantoo submitted to medievalpoc:

Unknown artist, possibly of the Brazilian School

Black Artist Completing a Portrait of a White Female Aristocrat

Brazil (early 1700s)

Oil on canvas

Philadelphia private collection

[x], [x]

I was thrilled at first to see this image - a pre-modern Black woman artist, portrayed at work! But then I saw this:

Although this black artist appears to be wearing a dress, it is likely to be a male figure. As the scholar Sheldon Cheek explains, the artist wears an earring and a silver collar, both common articles worn by black male servants/slaves in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, the collar traditionally indicating slave status. Women rarely, if ever, wore the silver collar. The artist also appears to be wearing a silver “shackle” on the arm.

Ugh. Pretty awful.

I think we should all be pretty critical of what’s written about this painting. Especially the part you’ve quoted above about how they have assigned the gender of the artist in the painting. I find it bizarre that something that is supposed to indicate enslaved status (not gender) somehow trumps this person wearing women’s clothing (that’s also a woman’s hat to the best of my knowledge).

The Americas, including Brazil, have a long tradition of transgender and third gender people. This is one of those images from the past that falls quite easily through the cracks because it is a collection of “exceptions”; it doesn’t fit nicely into categories that have been created and therefore, it’s more or less ignored.

If anyone’s hesitant to be critical, maybe you should also note that both the articles linked above make claims that slavery in Brazil was “less harsh” than other places. What???

How many of our assumptions are being projected onto this painting? Are the “contradictions” present in it a product of the painting itself, or is the problem with the categories we try to place it in? How many layers do we have to fight uphill through when we even look at this image? After all, History teaches us:

  • women weren’t artists
  • Black people weren’t artists
  • Black people were enslaved
  • Enslaved people didn’t do anything of worth
  • Transgender, genderqueer and third gender people didn’t exist before the 1960s
  • white people control how Black images are perceived, but not the other way around
  • gender must be immediately perceivable and fit into our categories of “male” and “female”

^ So this is the baggage we bring with us when we look at this image. We look at this painting, and we actively search for indicators that allow us to continue to believe the above assumptions.

If we take away those assumptions, if we try to move past them and see this portrait with new eyes, what are we left with? Whose History do we see here? Maybe it’s mine; maybe it’s yours.

If we step away from skin color, the artist is wearing a doublet with slashes and puffs. This could be clothing for either a male or female person. I’m not real good at doublets, but I think they’re usually high neck designs, so being able to see the necklace or collar is a bit odd. I seem to recall that sometimes male doublets go to knee length, so the doublet isn’t a strong indicator of gender.

The artist’s subject looks to be wearing a mantua or other loose gown. Again, this isn’t a strictly gendered piece of clothing, tho the low cut over the breast suggests this one is meant for women. The hairstyle is one I’d probably assume is for women, but 1700s hair is hard to judge, and I don’t see anything that makes the style definitely feminine.

Collar style necklaces have been a popular design in pretty much any fashion era I can think of. I can’t recall seeing any 1700s examples like the artist wears, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

The earring could be a man’s single earring, or part of a pair. We can’t see the other side of the artist’s head, and even if the artist wore two, that doesn’t automatically mean the artist is female.

imsirius:

Daniel Radcliffe and Dane DeHaan on the sex scene [in Kill Your Darlings] that made headlines +

(via seananmcguire)

I need white people to stop pretending consent was possible during slavery.

Stop lying to yourselves that those black cousins are the result of illicit love affairs & grasp that slaves could not say no.

When consent is not an option, when you’re only seen as 3/5ths of a human being & you have no legal standing? You can’t say yes.

I need white America to sit down for a sec. Look into the faces of black Americans with the same last names & figure it the fuck out.

Our ancestors were raped by your ancestors. Regularly. Some of the kids were treated kindly. Most were not. They were sold.

White mistresses punished the slaves for “tempting” master & congratulated themselves on that bloody work. Read the narratives.

Not the cleaned up ones either. Read Incidents in The Life of A Slave Girl & understand that Mammy was a victim, not the one who loved you.

She couldn’t care for her kids, couldn’t choose her husband or their father most of the time. She was a slave.

Millions of people died on the Middle Passage. Millions more died here at the hands of your ancestors. Own that.

Now you want to sing Kumbaya & keep oppressing our communities & erasing our contributions. Spare me the tired bullshit.

Male slaves fared no better. There’s a long history of them being raped, tortured & killed too. That was slavery. Stop romanticizing it.

Our children were fed to alligators as bait (feel free to look that up) died of starvation or exposure & that was slavery too. Yep, we were livestock & you use sickly livestock as bait.

Stop watching Gone With The Wind & fantasizing about beautiful plantations if you can’t accept what happened on those plantations.

House slaves had it better in the sense of access to food & possibly better treatment, but they were still slaves.

14 year old slave girls weren’t falling in love with the men who could beat them & everyone they loved to death.

Read the tales of enslaved women who killed their children to spare them. Read about people beaten to death as an example.

Sally Hemings could have left Jefferson in Paris. Of course her entire family was still in his power. And his “love”? Didn’t free her. Ever.

Go look at the pictures of former slaves backs. Whipped until they bled & left to scar so they were maimed for life & couldn’t run.

Also before you talk about the cleaned up narratives, remember that the people relating their stories knew lynching was always possible.

Records of slavery were deliberately destroyed so that former owners wouldn’t have to pay anyone.

That “peculiar institution” was generations of blood, pain, & terror. That’s what built America. Never forget that.

Now stop talking about anyone’s white ancestors like they deserve the fucking credit for the success of people descended from slaves.

American slavery began in 1619. June 19, 1865 was the last official day of slavery. Do the math on how long it takes to heal that wound.

After slavery was officially over? Black codes & Jim Crow laws followed. America’s history of oppression is longer than that of freedom.

Also before any d*mb motherfuckers land in my mentions. I have a degree in history. I will read you to filth & bury you in sources.

Trust & believe there is no country here for people who want to romanticize a system that is still grinding away at my community.

All this fluffy fucking talk about American history to coddle white kids feelings & engender patriotism? You won’t get it here.

My ancestors built this country, I served this country & I will tell the damned truth about this country. Don’t like it? Fuck you.

Now let me get in my feelings about slavery before Africans were brought here. Because we weren’t the first people enslaved.

We were deliberately sought out for our skill sets & resistance to disease. Know why we were resistant? We’d had contact for years.

All of that “My ancestors never owned slaves so it has nothing to do with me?” Go look at those NDN ancestors again. See how many were free.

While you’re in there checking that out? Look up those old country ancestors & see how many benefited from slavery indirectly.

Also while we’re talking about NDN relatives? Yo, learn a name besides Cherokee. Better yet, learn about the genocidal tactics they faced.

Look up immigrant groups becoming white in America. Find out who had to bleed so they could gain access to white privilege.

Let’s really talk about the Red Summer of 1919 & how it wasn’t an unusual occurrence. Tulsa, Rosewood? They were just famous.

Let’s talk about welfare & who could access it. Hell let’s talk about who is collecting more of it right now.

Let’s talk about the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action (spoiler! White women!) & what it means to attack black people instead.

Shit, let’s get into the Great Depression & the Great Recession & who is hurting the most financially through both.

Let’s talk about conditions on reservations, in the inner city, & the violence faced by POC who try to leave those areas.

Hell, let’s talk about why we don’t see shows that reflect the American population set in the past, present, or future.

Go read Columbus’ diaries & see what “civilization” really meant to the people he encountered.

For that matter go read up on King Leopold & the Congo. I’ll wait while you cry.

That’s the thing about whiteness as a social construct in America. It’s not about white people, it’s about white power over others.

When we’re talking about white privilege? We’re talking about what it takes to shape this society based on oppression.

America is a young country with a lot of power because of genocide, slavery, & continuing oppression. Individuals build institutions.

All of these conversations aren’t about bringing out white guilt, they’re about ending this institution developed over the generations.

Also let’s be clear that America is sick with this ish across the political spectrum. It may manifest differently but it exists everywhere.

Before I go, let me also suggest that people who are curious about anything I tweeted about take a tour through Google with terms.

It’s not that I won’t answer questions, but there are books out there that I think everyone should read on slavery, whiteness, & America.

Karnythia,  laying it down with righteousness on Juneteenth — the truth about slavery and its lingering effects on America.  (via skyliting)

I don’t want to see tl;dr no you ALL need to fucking read this. (via thisisnotblackhistorymonth)

I’m too “biracial” to hear this

(via manifestingwomanist)

*sits back and sips tea*

(via curleefrojo)

(via seananmcguire)