fuck yeah medical transcription


Contemporary Art Week!


Lost silent film with all-Native American cast found

The Daughter of Dawn, an 80-minute feature film, was shot in July of 1920 in the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge near Lawton, southwest Oklahoma. It was unique in the annals of silent film (or talkies, for that matter) for having a cast of 300 Comanches and Kiowas who brought their own clothes, horses, tipis, everyday props and who told their story without a single reference to the United States Cavalry. It was a love story, a four-person star-crossed romance that ends with the two main characters together happily ever after. There are two buffalo hunt sequences with actual herds of buffalo being chased down by hunters on bareback just as they had done on the Plains 50 years earlier.

The male lead was played by White Parker; another featured female role was played by Wanada Parker. They were the son and daughter of the powerful Comanche chief Quanah Parker, the last of the free Plains Quahadi Comanche warriors. He never lost a battle to United States forces, but, his people sick and starving, he surrendered at Fort Sill in 1875. Quanah was the son of Comanche chief Peta Nocona and Cynthia Ann Parker, the daughter of Euro-American settlers who had grown up in the tribe after she was kidnapped as a child by the Comanches who killed her parents. She was the model for Stands With a Fist in Dances with Wolves.

You can watch the first ten minutes of the film here. It is over 90 years old, and was produced by, directed by, and stars Native American people.


miniature disneyland for babies. :)


Snow Leopard (by Daniel P Davis)








fuckyeahalejandra replied to your post: Ancient Art Week! Various Roman Sculpt…

Are these sculptures of roman citizens or slaves?

The association of Black people with enslavement is an entirely modern invention, as in, chattel slavery in the…

Regarding the whole ‘men hunted, women gave birth’ thing (and wildly off topic from racism in classical Rome, sorry), it is looking increasingly like a load of nonsense (no surprise). 

There are prehistoric hunting scenes showing hunts which (probably *1) show women hunting for one thing and despite this male researcers still declares that men hunted and men created these hunting scenes and were also the first artists. But now we know that these hunting scenes not only show women hunting in some cases but WERE PRODUCED BY WOMEN primarily!

So what evidence for male = hunter is there?

When you look at the evidence for male hunters you have gender bias (men obviously hunted because men hunt now), gender essentialism (men hunted because they had less body fat and didn’t need to produce babies and Reasons) and ethnographic evidence (indigenous Australian hunters were solely male in the 19th-20th centuries).

We assume that because violent activities today are associated with men while women nurtured young that has always been the way. We also assume that women who were not pregnant would be compelled to behave in the same way as women who were pregnant/looking after children. It also assumes that hunting was much more dangerous than it probably was, hunters were often as much scavengers as far as we can tell from archaeological evidence of kill sites and often employed tactics like driving pray off cliffs to die or into dead ends were they could be picked off more safely. That isn’t to say it was completely safe of course. But who is to say gathering was necessarily safe in an age where a simple cut could result in death from infection and there were no anti-bodies for the admittedly few venomous creatures in Europe or that the gatherers would be free from the attentions of now extinct predators.

Much of the ethnographic evidence comes either from African nomadic peoples which have still had thousands of years of contact with patriarchal cultures or Australian Aboriginal and Papua New Guinean groups. The ethnographic observations were made in the 19th and 20th centuries and are deeply racist because they were based on the assumption that these cultures were primitive and unchanging since settlement of Sahul (Australia + New Guinea when they were connected) 50,000 years ago! We know, for example, in the early nineteenth century the power structure of Australian indigenous populations shifted in favour of young men after various epidemics killed 90% of the Aboriginal population in the space of 50 years or thereabout (something we never learnt in school, funnily enough). We do not know who hunted prior to European colonisation of Australia. We guess and the further back in time you go the more problematic that becomes because the hundreds at least indigenous cultures in Australia have all evolved over time just like any other culture.

IF we accept the creators of the hunting scenes across Europe were hunters themselves then we have to accept that women were as likely to be hunters as men. If we do not want to accept that the people who made the art were hunters then we have no evidence beyond ethnographic evidence for males solely being hunters and then we have to look carefully at the ethnographic evidence and accept it is deeply, deeply problematic.

So, in my opinion as a humble archaeology undergraduate, we either accept we have no firm evidence to say men or women hunted, just that hunting was done. If you accepted the cave paintings as evidence of male hunters when they were believed to be produced by men you should also accept they are now evidence of female hunting.

If you think you can say with certainty that ‘women have always been subjected to men because Reasons’ then you have no clue what you are talking about.Sadly much of the scholarship on the subject assumes male = hunter and works forward from that, trying to justify the assumption rather than addressing the actual evidence. Because if we accept that there is no evidence for that then it undermines a lot of nonsense gender essentialism used to handwave away sexism in society today. 


Australian Archaeology by Peter Hiscock

Cave paintings created by women

Lectures, seminars, lost media articles etc. 

Image source

*1 Of course it is ‘accepted’ (read: assumed) that all the figures are male by default unless there are obvious feminine traits as opposed to just representing people in general.

Oh my god, I could not have said that nearly as well as you did.

This is such a concise and accessible explanation of why and how so much of what we “know” about the ancient world, prehistory, and a lot of history in general has almost EVERYTHING to do with looking for confirmation of reflections of our CURRENT SOCIETY, and any academic with a lick of honesty will tell you the same thing.

My graduate adviser tells a story about doing her dissertation research in Normandy in the 1970s, where she delved into the civic archives of Caen to study the role of women in early modern commerce. The other academic working there was an older French man (my adviser is an American woman), and he guffawed at her research plans and greatly despised her working there alongside him, a “real” historian studying “serious” history. He insisted repeatedly that there were no women working in commerce in France at that time, and that there were only men.

My adviser soldiered on despite having to work while facing directly at this man every single day. As she began her research, she began finding women “hiding” in plain sight, listed right alongside men in the tax rolls and notarized sales that they were both studying. She found hundreds of women engaging in buying and selling, and happily shoved these documents right in the face of her detractor, who now insisted that these women, who had not existed in his mind the day before, were simply “unimportant”. 

My point: our biases are so powerful that we can literally look at documents and not see the names on the paper, if we believe that those names should not be there. How much of our narrative self-perpetuates, as generations of scholars find support for preexisting biases by simply overlooking the contradictory evidence staring right back at them?

It’s not just historical academia, either.

My favourite Biology prof did sex studies on guppies when she was in grad school, like you do. It was all about male colour variation and the effects on female mate choice — during mating season, males go through colour change and get these bright, beautiful red or blue markings, and there’s a ton of research done on their role in female mate choice. Like peacocks, it’s generally accepted that bigger, brighter indicators cause females to choose the “fitter” males.

My prof noticed there was one fish in her study that was exhibiting a really atypical colour change. They usually go blue and red at the fins, but this one went a deep gold all over (they start silver). She was intrigued by this atypical morph, and was really interested in it, until it started swelling. Afraid that it had parasites and would contaminate the study population, she culled it and dissected it to see what was going on.

It was pregnant. It was a female.

Everybody knew that females didn’t change colour. So she’d assumed that it was a  male. But it got even worse — looking back over her notes, she’d actually noted down that the females turned gold, but completely dismissed and overlooked her own note taking, because of the commonly-held facts. Despite the fact that she’d written it down, it never even processed.

So when she submitted her paper, she added a note in the discussion pointing out that despite commonly-held belief, females change colour too, and that future studies should investigate whether female colour change also plays a role in guppy mating behaviour.

Her paper was rejected, with a note saying “this academic journal is not the place for your feminist propaganda.”

Reblogging this one too because people are always asking “but what about science though”



Every time someone uses the word “psychotic” to mean some variation of “evil, sadistic murder”. This is not what this word means, and every single supposedly insignificant use of this word in a derogatory manner contributes to the massive stigma that I, as a mentally ill person who has been…

Yeah, this bothers me all the time too! Psychosis as I understand it just means some degree of difficulty with reality testing. It doesn’t always mean a person is having hallucinations, either. It’s more common than people think and associated with more wide-ranging mental health issues than people think. Most people seem to think that if you’re having psychotic symptoms you must be schizophrenic, but they can be caused by a wide variety of things including medical problems and depression. Plenty of people who have psychotic symptoms have treatable / manageable conditions. People have this idea that psychotic = malicious, creepy, and hostile. That’s a bunch of b.s. It’s true that people who are having intense psychotic symptoms are *sometimes* dangerous, because they can have delusions or hallucinations that make the world seem like an incredibly frightening and confusing place, and sometimes people who are feeling that way lash out at others (especially if part of their symptomatology is thinking the people around them are out to get them). But people in that situation deserve compassion, not suspicion. 

I have a bunch of other pet peeves about misuses of psychological terminology that cause me to yell at TV shows and stuff (which always makes Brian laugh). If you don’t feel like going out this weekend, you are not being antisocial. You just don’t feel like going out. If you had a super intense version of this where you had little or no desire for human contact, you would be asocial. Antisocial doesn’t mean you don’t want to be around others, it means you act in ways that either intentionally hurt others or are neglectful with regard to others’ well-being. Antisocial symptoms are highly correlated with criminality. People with Antisocial Personality Disorder are generally deceptive, aggressive, and lack remorse when they hurt others. They’re not hermits, they’re people with a tendency to hurt others. They’re harder to be compassionate towards, but many have predispositions that combined with difficult adverse experiences in childhood to make it really hard for them to relate to others and abide by social norms. 

"Psychopath" is pretty much a meaningless term when it comes to psychology. I mean, people study psychopathy but sociopathy is a more precise term. Sometimes people use "psychopath" to mean an antisocial person or a person with antisocial PD, but that’s a much broader group than true sociopaths. Actual sociopaths are incredibly rare and exist way more frequently in fictional worlds than in the real one. Psychopathy also shouldn’t be confused with "psychopathology," which refers either to a particular person’s mental health symptomatology or to the overall study of psychological disorders. 

The more I work in mental health the more I’m struck by the lazy strategies a lot of media creators use when they want to put characters in jeopardy or portray the human capacity for evil or whatever. There’s such a tendency to go for the same old mentally ill murderer tropes that are incredibly unrealistic. But in reality, there is plenty of evil in the world that has nothing to do with, like, Hannibal Lecter-ish people. The majority of the human pain in the world has to do with abuse from family members and intimate partners, systemic injustice and deprivation, and the violence people experience in war and other hostile environments like high-crime areas. More and more I find myself wishing that people would write about these things more and these outlandish, unlikely sources of suffering less. Maybe it’s easier to turn off the TV and go to bed feeling safe in your home if you pretend that danger always comes in the form of some kind of exotic mentally ill menace and not the everyday callousness, entitlement, and selfishness of ordinary people. 


Every time someone uses the word “psychotic” to mean some variation of “evil, sadistic murder”. This is not what this word means, and every single supposedly insignificant use of this word in a derogatory manner contributes to the massive stigma that I, as a mentally ill person who has been…


7/365 When it all seems green (by Lloyd Revald)


7/365 When it all seems green (by Lloyd Revald)


(by Gabriela Mailet)
I noticed that, amidst your (admittedly interesting) rant, you failed to answer the person's question.


This question, as asked? If you really want a list of people of color “from history” who were neither enslaved nor anyone’s servant…

John Archer, Mayor of Battersea, South London

Black Artists in Europe c. 1800s

Interactive Map on Black Londoners 1800-1900

Black Sailors in the British Navy during the Battle of Trafalgar (video)

Billy Waters and the Black and South Asian Sailors of the British Navy

Paul Cuffee, Ship Owner, Navigator and Abolitionist

Ira Aldridge, Shakespearean Actor in Victorian London

50,000 Free People of Color and Creole people in Louisiana

List of the Monarchs of Hawai’i (with some European Portraits)

Monarchs of Tonga

Monarchy of Fiji

Prime Ministers of Samoa; Malietoa of Samoa

African History from the Dawn of Time

The Kingdom of Ghana

List of Black/African Saints

Mongol Elements in Western Medieval Art

The History of Tunisia (Carthage)

Black Roman Emperor Septimus Severus

List of 50 especially great Black Kings and Queens


Racism and the Rediscovery of Ancient Nubia (“Kush”, from the Christian Bible)

The Kilwa Sultanate of Tanzania

Most of the Egyptian Royalty of ever

All of the rulers from the History of what is now Nigeria

Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors 三皇五帝
Xia Dynasty 夏
Shang Dynasty
Zhou Dynasty 周
Qin Dynasty 秦
Han Dynasty 漢/汉
Three Kingdoms Period 三國/三国
Jin Dynasty 晉/晋
Sixteen Kingdoms Period 十六國/十六国

 Sovereignties established by Wu Hu

Northern and Southern Dynasties 南北朝
Sui Dynasty 隋
Tang Dynasty 唐
Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms 五代十

Independent Regimes during Ten Kingdoms

Liao Dynasty 辽
Song Dynasty 宋
Western Xia 西夏
Jin Dynasty 金
Yuan Dynasty 元
Ming Dynasty 明

Shun Dynasty 順
Southern Ming Dynasty 南明

Qing Dynasty 清

Yuan Shikai’s Empire of China 中華帝國/中华帝国


Ancient Egypt:

Hellenic Epoch / Ptolemaic Dynasty

Islamic Egypt:


Nubia / Sudan:



Omani Sultans of Zanzibar







Modern Tunisia









Modern Angola

Central Africa:



South Africa:


Modern Madagascar

Ghanian Princes as Exchange Students in London

Ayuba Suleiman Diallo, A Man of Learning in London

Sir Morien, Black Knight of the Round Table

Queen Charlotte of Great Britain and Ireland

A Middle-Class Black British Woman

John Moore of York and the Black Freedman of the Tudor Era

Black and South Asian Men of the 19th Century British Navy

Samuel Coleridge Taylor, Composer

Roman Deserters at Hadrian’s Wall

George Augustus Polgreen Bridgetower, Musical Prodigy

Olaudah Equiano, British Abolitionist and Author, Merchant, and Explorer

From Majesty to Mystery-Change in Meanings of Black Madonnas from the 16th to 19th Centuries

Nigra Sum, sed Formosa: The Black Saints in Catholic Tradition

The Madonna and the Cuckoo: An Exploration in European Symbolic Conceptions

The Cult of the Black Virgin

Further Reading/Bibliography:

Can I stop now? Are we good?


Caracal (by guppiecat)