frantzfandom:

thegreatnessideserve:

dionysias:

 

And could we throw in the fact that if you were for a sensible equality  you should be demanding not bombing anybody and not demand that just different people should have been killed?

Okay kids, gather round because you seem to be under the impression that this website owes you an education AND that your education on this subject is sufficient. Neither of those is true, but I’m gonna help you out anyway!

First, let’s discuss the “reasons for dropping the bomb” that are commonly given, but also happen to be totally wrong:

  • Japan wasn’t willing to surrender

Actually, Japan was totally down to surrender! America was very good at cracking Japanese codes, and had intercepted several diplomatic messages sent to other countries where Japan expressed the terms of their conditions, with the only major term being that the emperor remain in power (Which would have been necessary to ensure a peaceful transition to foreign government for the Japanese people). Harry Truman ignored these messages and prolonged the war until the completion of the atomic bomb so that it could be used. More on that later.

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China’s] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union …

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

  • It would have saved more lives than it took

Nah. Japan was actually on it’s last legs, and wouldn’t have been able to fight much longer at all, thanks to effective embargoes, blockades, and traditional bombing. They had all but run out of fuel, ammunition, and other war supplies.

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

  • Destroying two major military targets helped us out

LOL Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren’t selected because they were military targets (Because they weren’t military targets at all!). They were selected because they were large cities where the bombs would have the most devastating affect.

President Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it “saved millions of lives” by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.”

This was a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population.”

General George Marshall agreed:

Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”

As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns  … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.

Now, let’s discuss the the actual reasons for dropping the bomb:

  • To send a message to the Soviet Union
  • That’s it
  • It was strictly political
History.com notes:

By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.

New Scientist reportedin 2005:

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 wasmeant to kick-start the Cold Warrather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago wasdone more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.

So let’s recap:

Harry Truman purposely killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to make a political statement.

The US detonated the world’s first weapon of mass destruction simply to send a message to the Soviet Union and stop Red expansion into Asia.

I’m not saying the fact that one group of people (Who happened to be Asian) was viewed as disposable just to put on a show for another group of people (Who happened to also be white) is an act of racism.

I’m also not saying that we should examine the fact that no German or Italian families living in the US were put into containment camps out of fear of spies, but pretty much all Asian-Americans were (Because Asia is a country, obviously).

I AM saying that maybe you should consider that your history lessons in school were taught from books written by old white men, and they might read a little differently if they weren’t. 

Oh, and I’ll leave on this little note from President Truman’s youth. Again, I’m not saying he’s racist or anything, but…

In Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Bomb, Japanese American historian Ronald Takaki writes about the man who made the final decision to destroy two Japanese cities, President Harry Truman. This was the same man who, when he was younger, wrote the following in a letter to his future wife, Bess:

I think one man is as good as another, so long as he’s honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. My uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man of dust, a n*gger from mud, then threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion that negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia, and white men in Europe and America.

Hey look, sources where you can go and educate yourself about all of this, and fact check me while you’re at it!

deleting most of the dumb white bullshit for the historical mic drops

queerly-it-is:

d’you think the avengers ever play a game where they try to push steve’s buttons and get him all riled up and patriotic?

tony casually throws it into a conversation like “oh yeah I don’t vote” and steve trails off mid-sentence and gapes for a second before he starts in on the importance of the democratic process and how dangerous it can be if citizens give up their say in how the government is run and tony is trying so so hard to keep a straight face

meanwhile bruce is standing in the background timing the speech with his watch because whoever gets the longest rant wins a little trophy that tony made. the current holder of the trophy is clint who managed to convince steve that he doesn’t pay taxes

stele3:

orionsnacks:

in the movie a little boy recognises steve at the captain america exhibit. it’s my headcanon that a little girl recognises bucky when he goes to the smithsonian exhibit to find out who he really is

because little girls have heroes too

"You should tie your hair back," a little girl with pitch-black hair says to the Winter Soldier. He stares down at her, silent, but she continues undeterred. "Mommy says that we need to have our hair tied back or we’ll trip over things because we can’t see. She makes me wear these—" She displays her wrist, which is encircled by a rainbow of different hair bands. "—because mine keep falling out. You can’t fight evil if you can’t see it. I want to be a police officer when I grow up. Are you a…"

She trails off, her eyes steadily getting bigger. They dart to the large digital image of James Buchanan Barnes, then back to his face. The Winter Soldier’s eyes dart, too, over the exits and the crowd and the girl’s distracted mother—attempting to corral three other black-haired children—before landing back on the girl’s face, where an improbable grin has begun to grow.

"I knew it," she whispers.

The Winter Soldier blinks down at her, thrown off by the delight in her expression. No one is ever happy to see the Soldier.

The girl reins in her wide grin and does her own scan of the crowd. “Don’t worry, I won’t tell. People can’t handle the truth. But I can.” She turns her shining eyes back to the Soldier.

Slowly, very slowly, the Soldier reaches out with hands that have broken, maimed, strangled, shot, stabbed, and ripped apart human flesh. His voice creaks out of him, rusty with disuse. “Can I have a hair tie?”

Without taking her eyes off him, the girl rolls a light blue one out of the rainbow and hands it over.

forsmithsandgiggles:

lewdmangabey:

maybe i’m a goddamn bleeding heart hippie liberal but i’m totally down with paying an extra .50 cents for a thing of fries if the person who makes me those fries doesn’t have to work 3 jobs just to survive.

most studies show that prices would only have to go up by 1 to 3 cents in order to raise employee wages significantly

or, you know, the ceo’s could take pay cuts but that would be so hard for the poor multimillionaires

stupidswampwitch:

masooood:

safeidgul:

Why can’t there be a male hooter’s equivalent where male servers are shirtless and highly sexualized for their bodies and looks

Male Strip clubs. You’re thinking of male strip clubs.

No. Not a male strip club. A strip club is a strip club. I want a place called Cahones where waiters wear Speedos and are forced to stuff if they don’t fill out their uniform well enough. I want them to giggle for my tips. I want it to be so normalised and engrained in our culture that women bring their daughters there for lunch (because whaaaaaat the wings are good! Geeze sensitive much?) where they’ll give playful little nudges like, “Wouldn’t mind if you dad had those. Heh heh heh.” that their daughters don’t even understand but will absorb and start to assume is just the normal way grown up women talk about grown up men. I want to playfully ask my waiter if I can have extra nuts on my salad and for him to swat my arm with an Oh, you because he knows if he doesn’t his manager will yell at him. I want other men to pretend to like going there so I think they’re cool. I want to go to Cahones during my lunch break at work and when I come back and tell the other women in the office where I went they chuckle slightly and the men around us suddenly feel self conscious and they don’t know why.

pickpants-maemae:

Guys this picture is so important to me. Sometimes i back out of cosplaying a character because im worried people will judge me or shame me for doing it because im black. Im constantly worried people wont take my cosplays seriously because im just a black girl dressing up as iconic white characters. And sometimes that fear makes me feel like I shouldnt do it, like cosplaying isnt for me and I shouldnt go to cons.

But meeting this little girl made me understand how important it is to show my love for characters even if they arent my race. This little girl came up to me and asked for a picture at LexCon, and I almost cried. She came up to me the ONLY black Harley in a sea of perfectly “accurate” white Harleys. And I was so happy she did, and so happy I was there. Im glad I chose to cosplay a character I love, and to be there representing black cosplayers, because now this little girl might have a little bit more confidence in herself. Maybe my being there helped this little girl see that even girls like her can be geeky and cosplay whoever they want.

I really hope so. I know this made me feel more confident. And this is a picture im gonna treasure forever!

We now know that 24 hours without sleep, or a week of sleeping four or five hours a night induces an impairment equivalent to a blood alcohol level of .1 percent. We would never say, ‘This person is a great worker! He’s drunk all the time!’ yet we continue to celebrate people who sacrifice sleep for work.

Insights from the doctor who coaches athletes on sleep. Pair with the science of what actually happens while you sleep and how it affects your every waking hour.

More on sleep here.

(via explore-blog)

Anonymous asked:
I'm not going to jump down your throat or anything but this here is a bad way to think... "if you are male sexed and predominantly present male, perhaps you’re less gender fluid and more outside what male means in our current gender binary. IDK.. just a thought" There are a lot of people who can't present how they want for a variety of reasons, be they the fact that they aren't out to everyone they know, they need to keep a job, or they don't have the money to buy the things the need to present

(from second ask) the way they wish to. This leads to people just assuming things and it’s really not good //

Its more that through the tumblr space i found someone who said they are gender fluid and like to predominantly present as male, with a little feminine flair now and again.
Not from the outer viewpoint that this person said this but did something else - I appreciate your input cause you are right, and again this isn’t me trying to suggest someone isn’t genderfluid-ing correctly? If thats the word it takes for you to be comfortable, go for it. I’m not going to police such usage.
I’m just hoping perhaps the definition needs to be challenged for what a man can or cannot do rather than abandoning it all together. 



I’m really starting to get worried about some of the language and discussions surrounding the social scene particularly when it comes to gender presentation and sexual preferences.

we’re in a wonderful age of discovery, breaking the molds, finding our niche - and I have no right and don’t begin to tread upon others self expression, but perhaps the labels you choose need more thought?

For instance, genderfluid or variant. What if you’re not experiencing gender disphoria, but instead you do not adhere to our old constricting gender binary? I have no idea and i support either, really - rock on, destroy that binary! But the scientist in me likes concise wording - if you are male sexed and predominantly present male, perhaps you’re less gender fluid and more outside what male means in our current gender binary. IDK.. just a thought.

Also, the rise of someone’s sexual preferences deviating from their romantic ones. And while that can and is frequently a thing, some I’ve seen.. it seems to belittle the love one can have for a friend. Platonic is different than romantic, sure. But when all my friends are in a cuddle pile, do i suddenly need to review my nomenclature? 

Its purely the scientist in me being a stickler for clear and concise language, I don’t want to see words lose meaning for those who need them just because others don’t want to put more effort into changing restricting definitions and instead adopt new language all together.

i want this sooo bad! so frequently caught w/o a thumb drive XD