When the Nazi concentration camps were liberated by the Allies, it was a time of great jubilation for the tens of thousands of people incarcerated in them. But an often forgotten fact of this time is that prisoners who happened to be wearing the pink triangle (the Nazis’ way of marking and identifying homosexuals) were forced to serve out the rest of their sentence. This was due to a part of German law simply known as “Paragraph 175” which criminalized homosexuality. The law wasn’t repealed until 1969.
This should be required learning, internationally.
You need to know this. You need to remember this. This is not something to swept under the carpet nor be forgotten.
Never. Too many have died for the way they have loved. That needs stop now.
Make it stop?
I did a report on this in my World History class my sophomore year of high school. It was incredibly unsettling.
My teacher shown the class this. Mostly everyone in the class felt uncomfortable.
I have reblogged this in the past, but it is so ironic that it comes across my dash right now. I a currently working as a docent at my city’s Holocaust Education Center (( I say currently because I’ve also done research and translation for them )) and out current exhibit is one on loan from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ((USHMM)). This is a little known historical fact that Paragraph 175 was not repealed after the war and those convicted under Nazi laws as a danger to society because they were gay were not released because they had be convicted in a court of law. There was no liberation or justice for them as they weren’t considered criminals, or even victims for that matter. They were criminals who remained persecuted and ostracized and kept on the fringes of society for decades after the war had been won. Paragraph175 wasn’t actually repealed until 1994. And it was only in May 2002, that the German parliament completed legislation to pardon all homosexuals convicted under Paragraph175 during the Nazi era. History has forgotten about these men and women — please educate yourselves so this does not happen again. Remember this history. Remember them.
@mindlesshumor ok how the fuck did I miss this when I’ve studied The Holocaust like nobody’s business??? wtf
Because the history we have left regarding it is literally the contents of this first hand account.
It is a thin little book.
When I first opened it, I wondered why it was so thin.
Why there wasn’t other books like it.
Other first hand accounts.
By the time I finished it, I didn’t wonder anymore.
Bent by Martin Sherman (fiction; however, it’s often credited with bringing attention to gay Holocaust victims for the first time since the war ended)
This is one of the memorial sculptures in Dachau. It was erected in the early 60s and is missing the pink triangles. Because in the early 60s, homosexuality was still a crime in most of the world. Our tour guide explained why the pink triangles have not been added later – if they were, then folks would assume that they had always been there. This way people ask “why aren’t there pink triangles?” and somebody can explain why – because in some ways, the rest of the world was as bass-ackwards as Nazi Germany.
Pride month is coming up, so here’s a reminder that the Stonewall riots (in which trans women of color fought for us to have rights) wasn’t about marriage equality, it was about police brutality.
and that the fight for marriage equality wasn’t about being heteronormative it was about lgbt couples being able to have the same legal rights as straight couples regarding their relationship especially during the aids epidemic. it was so that lgbt people could be with their partners while they died.
Not the avengers cast, but the show set in the MCU, with the actual avengers.
– Imagine Bucky having to be on the same team as Sam and they just argue the whole time.
– Or Thor and Loki discovering it’s the one thing that they actually work well as a team on and they high five every time the other gets a point.
– Or Steve and Tony absolutely roasting the shit out of each other across the panels.
– Shuri and Peter going head to head as the ultimate show down of who is the nerdiest.
– Banner and Natasha going up against eachother but he gets so distracted by how beautiful she is that he completely misses the question and Clint slaps him.
– Or Mantis and Drax going head to head but because neither knows anything about earth they just keep answering the questions completely wrong and Quill is going insane, like:
Steve Harvey: “Something you’d put in a smoothie!”
Mantis: “bacon!”
Drax: “Chicken!”
Mantis: “leaves!”
Drax: “I’ve got this Quill don’t worry, A REFRIGERATOR.”
Mary Shelley’s father taught her to spell her name by taking her to the graveyard and having her trace the letters on her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s gravestone.
NO ONE will ever be as goth.
didnt she also have sex on said grave
She lost her virginity on her mother’s grave yes
… that’s it we can all go home, peak goth was achieved before we even started.
In 1827, Mary Shelley was party to a scheme that enabled her friend Isabel Robinson and Isabel’s lover, Mary Diana Dods, who wrote under the name David Lyndsay, to embark on a life together in France as man and wife.[126][note 13] With the help of [American actor John Howard] Payne, whom she kept in the dark about the details, Mary Shelley obtained false passports for the couple.[127]
The more I learn about Mary Shelley the more I love her
I love when JSTOR pops up in tangentially academic threads.
rdj kissing josh brolin on the lips is such a power move. the man doesn’t give a single fuck. he’s the male protagonist archetype of this century but he will kiss as many guys as he pleases because he can and there’s nothing hollywood can do about it
i love how the media has rdj as this manly hetero Man Of Iron™ but he lives on a diferent dimension where sexuality is whatever the fuck he wants it to be. he will kiss man and women as he pleases. he will dress in pink and yellow and not give a single fuck.
question: how would you deal with cyber attacks against the US government?
donald trump: i am so strongly against cyber. we came up with the internet. cyber is a big issue. we need to be SMART and QUICK. let me tell you. my son has a computer. he’s 10! he’s so good on that computer so good you wouldn’t believe it!
re: last gifset i mean yes and good and i would die for zendaya but the spiderman reboot only exists because andrew garfield was vocally campaigning for a bi peter parker and for michael b. jordan to play mj and sony responded by firing him and signing a licensing agreement with marvel which explicitly contractually obligates marvel to portray spiderman as heterosexual and white
ok this seems to be getting notes outside of my circle so i’m going to add some more context to this
so in a july 2013 interview with entertainment weekly, andrew garfield said that he’d been discussing the possibility of a bi peter parker with marc webb, the films’ director, and matt tolmach, one of the producers. this was just a little over a year before the amazing spiderman 2 was released. choice quote:
Recently, he says, he had a philosophical discussion with producer Matt Tolmach about Mary Jane or “MJ” to fans. “I was kind of joking, but kind of not joking about MJ,” he tells EW. “And I was like, ‘What if MJ is a dude?’ Why can’t we discover that Peter is exploring his sexuality? It’s hardly even groundbreaking!…So why can’t he be gay? Why can’t he be into boys?”
Garfield even has an actor in mind: “I’ve been obsessed with Michael B. Jordan since The Wire. He’s so charismatic and talented. It’d be even better—we’d have interracial bisexuality!” The star has clearly suggested a sexually flexible Spidey to his director, Marc Webb, as well. When EW later mentions the idea to Webb, the director says, “Michael B. Jordan, I know.” Oh, so he’s heard this too? “Uh, are you kidding?”
so, in andrew’s own words, he was “not joking” about this, and michael b. jordan was not just a random suggestion andrew threw out during an interview – he’d actually discussed the possibility with the director.
Spider-Man‘s Andrew Garfield recently said that the superhero’s sexuality is open to interpretation, and he named you as someone he’d want to play his gay lover in the film, should Marc Webb choose to go that route. No thoughts on that, but I am a fan of Andrew. He’s a talented actor, I admire his work, and I’d definitely love to work with him in the future. He’s a funny guy–he’s got a sense of humor and I love people that won’t take themselves too seriously all the time, so it’s cool for him to come out and say how he felt or joke around or whatever. It was fun, I laughed at it.
it’s worth noting that one month prior, in june 2013, it was announced in the hollywood reporter that shailene woodley, originally cast as mary jane, would have all of her scenes cut from spiderman 2. note this excerpt from the article:
“I made a creative decision to streamline the story and focus on Peter and Gwen and their relationship,” said Webb. “Shailene is an incredibly talented actress, and while we only shot a few scenes with Mary Jane, we all love working with her.”
The plan now is for Watson, one of Peter Parker/Spider-Man’s iconic love interests, to be introduced in the third movie.
It is likely that Woodley will not return and that the part will be recast.
“Of course I’m bummed,” Woodley told Entertainment Weekly, which first reported the news. “But I’m a firm believer in everything happening for a specific reason. … Based on the proposed plot, I completely understand holding off on introducing [Mary Jane] until the next film.”
okay, so – couple things:
“watson, one of peter parker/spider-man’s iconic love interests” – not “mary jane,” but the gender neutral “watson”
the director complimented shailene’s talent and work ethic, indicating that nothing in her performance was a problem; nonetheless, “woodley will not return and the part will be recast”
and woodley says, “based on the proposed plot, i completely understand holding off on introducing [mary jane] until the next film”
and the brackets around [mary jane] indicated that she… didn’t say mary jane. she said something else. maybe “watson.” maybe “MJ.”
and, of course, one month later, andrew garfield and marc webb were publicly running around comic-con calling for a bisexual spiderman and michael b. jordan as MJ.
hmm.
now, when later asked about the entertainment weekly interview, andrew claims that he was “joking” and that “it wouldn’t make sense for peter parker to suddenly discover he’s into boys” but then… he delivers a three-minute monologue about lgbt teen suicide and the importance of representation and almost starts crying. so make of that what you will.
then, shortly after comic-con, in august of 2013, stan lee was asked a couple of times about andrew garfield’s call for a bisexual spiderman. his thoughts:
This past weekend, Comicbook.com covered Fandomfest in Louisville, Kentucky, where we reported on Stan Lee’s reaction to a question about Andrew Garfield’s idea to make Spider-Man bisexual. Stan Lee said, “He’s becoming bisexual? Really? Who have you been talking to? I don’t know…seriously I don’t know anything about that. And if it’s true, I’m going to make a couple of phone calls. I figure one sex is enough for anybody.”
In an interview yesterday with WGN radio, Stan Lee was once again asked about Andrew Garfield’s comments. The radio host asked, “There’s one thing that happened recently, and I think this is one thing that makes you a little bit mad. Andrew Garfield suggested that maybe MJ could be a man. Was that out of left field?”
Stan Lee replied, “Boy, that was so out of left field! I don’t understand why he said that, and one of the quotes I gave, he wanted to talk about I think Spider-Man being bisexual, and my only comment was I thought one sex at a time ought to be enough for anybody.”
When asked where he thought Andrew Garfield’s comments came from or if he was just trying to include another audience, Stan Lee said, “Or maybe sometimes you say something just to be noticed or to create a controversy, who knows? But he’s a great guy and he’s a fine actor, and I hope this doesn’t hurt him in any way.”
so like… stan lee was not on fucking board. stan lee was talking about “making a couple of phone calls,” and suggesting andrew “said something just to be noticed or to create a controversy,” and intimated, “i hope this doesn’t hurt him in any way.”
and then, of course, andrew was let go from his contract, and sony struck a deal with marvel to reboot spiderman according to a legal licensing agreement – in place prior to the andrew garfield movies, actually – requiring peter parker to be heterosexual and white.
now, earlier this year, andrew garfield took part in a roundtable discussion with several other actors, including dev patel.
at one point, around the 36-minute mark, dev mentions that he regrets participating in avatar: the last airbender, saying:
I saw a stranger on the screen, like, i didn’t really relate to. And I was just like, this is a terrible extension of me. This is not what I want to represent in any way.
andrew then replies:
I love what you just said, that it felt like you were looking at a stranger, and feeling like you were perpetuating something that’s toxic. And something that’s shallow. And something that has no depth. No matter how much depth was attempted to be bought into it and sold. And then you go – millions and million, for me it was, you know, Spiderman stuff… There’s millions and millions of young people watching who are hungry for a hand here. Someone to say, “You’re okay. Everything’s okay. You’re seen. You’re seen very deeply.” And we have opportunities to do that with those kind of behemoth films. And more often than not, the opportunity is not taken. And it’s absolutely devastating and heartbreaking because there’s so much medicine that could be delivered through those films.”
then the interview asks, “but why is it not taken?” and andrew replies, “why do you think? why do you think?”
tl;dr andrew garfield and marc webb were lobbying for a bisexual spiderman and sony literally fired both of them, signed a licensing agreement with marvel, and rebooted the entire franchise to ensure that would not happen. thanks for coming to my ted talk.
gollums loincloth is like 2 inches of toilet paper and he’s hopping around like disneys quasimodo doing acrobatics and we as an audience are narrowly spared from seeing his peepee but you cannot you CANNOT argue that sam and frodo didnt see it at least once!! they didn’t want to but they didn’t have things like camera angles to save them they probably saw gollums swinging little meat sack a hundred times and both of them just decided to never ever mention it
did they decide to never ever mention it or are they talking about it constantly every time the camera cuts away? we the audience get to decide and that’s why i think fiction is so powerful
backup from Tumblr 