Trump reliquary. Also, fuck, this actually seems like a profitable and doable grift. Hmmmmmm...
Yeah, I'm certainly not trying to run cover for a colonial framing of history. It just seemed, from the question, that he lacked that context for the event.
According to the article, it looks like the context in which he killed the general was in an ambush during negotiations. I figure that that is why it was considerer a war crime.
That second one strongly reminds me of this Beksinski work
Also, this musician is so talented that they never have to pay for rent, or food.
This is so psychopathic. Why would anyone care about a system of laws which permits killing a child? Who in the world cares about the distinction between "legally killed child" and "murdered child"? Who could read that sentence and think anything other than "whatever laws they are referring to are utterly worthless"?
Honestly, I'd be very in favor of lab-grown animal products, if they were affordable enough. I'm a pretty big foodie and it would be very wonderful to have an ethical way of enjoying and sharing recipes for which I've been unable to find an adequate vegan substituion.
I was just going to say something along those lines, it feels very uncanny to me that the terminology goes unchallenged; the only thing it has in common with a dog is how it moves.
Accepting the word "dog" works to compare this to an actual living being, and hide the fact that it's just a terrestrial drone. Seeing the article just accept it makes my skin crawl.
Hi there! A good friend of mine is working on a research paper, and was hoping to find some more information and documentation about the subject. I want to help him out, and I figured that this community would be a good place to ask, so if anyone has books, papers, or other things to check out, I'd appreciate it very greatly!
For more context on the paper, he gave me this understanding: > It starts from the premise that westward expansion in the USA imposed a settler-colonial understanding of nature and purpose onto land, which considers it as a fungible commodity that can be "developed" without regard for its specific character. > > It indicates that as the US was founded on that understanding of land, it still defines how the US and its citizens engage with the land nowadays. > > Considering the above, it intends to do the following: > > A) Provide a historical overview of settler interactions with the land (e.g. Homestead acts, Dawes act) > > B) Explain what that reflects about settler relationships to the land (as opposed to indigenous relationships to it), especially with regard to its valuation as privately owned and fungible commodity. > > C) Identify how this relationship to land leads to modern issues, especially in agriculture and housing.
Recommendations for any relevant readings would be greatly appreciated! Thanks a million, comrades !rat-salute-2
