dragon-says-goodnight

[dragon-says-goodnight]

I love milk, milk is delicious, loved it my entire life.

Was in London when I was 11, sits ages ago but I tried some milk there.

I didn’t drink milk while I was in England again because it was gross :x

So maybe he just needs to try a different brand? XD

A drank a glass of milk in front of my boyfriend and he reacted like I'd killed someone in front of him

[dragon-says-goodnight]

Yes.

I get a prescription with enough insulin that lasts me roughly a year each time. As insulin doses vary from person to person, this will last longer for some, and shorter for others.

Doesn’t matter jackshit how often I go and get insulin, if I came the day after I picked one up the pharmacist might ask why, and if I said my insulin supply got damaged/destroyed they wouldn’t bat an eyelash.

Now if you did this on the regular for some weird reason, there might be some alarm bells I guess?

But yeah, my slow acting and fast acting insulin costs me the equivalent of like 100 - 150 dollars a year in total, and even if I needed 10x the amount of insulin, the cost would be the same.

[dragon-says-goodnight]

If you mean the three countries that does commercial whaling - I don’t think you’d get away with hunting orca in either of those countries. Iceland only hunts for Minke and Fin whales, Japan I’m actually not sure about, and in Norway it’s only Minke whales that’s legs to hunt.

as much as i love seeing orcas launching what appears to be intentional coordinated attacks on human ships it also makes me very sad because if it starts to become a genuine problem or even an extremely minor disruption to business people are going to just start killing them and i don't know that the orcas really understand the power differential they're dealing with here. that is why i am starting an organization whose mission will be to establish communication with the orca populace and provide them with equipment and training in order to level the playing field and empower them to take control of the seas, with the potential to open up trade and diplomatic relations on their own terms

[dragon-says-goodnight]

Do you keep sources for posts you’ve posted two and a half years ago on hand? If not, stop being a hypocrite.

learning the truth about TERFs is like learning the resident evil witch is just a nice old lady that wants to live peacefully and have basic rights and a herb garden

[dragon-says-goodnight]

Girl, it’s over two years ago, if you think I remember the urls of these people at this point, especially a url for those specific posts, you’ve gotta be smoking something. They might not be too hard to dig up with some Google searches; but you’re just as capable as doing that as I am. I’d do it if this wasn’t over two years old.

But well, some of these posts I’ve reblogged at some point before this post; at least the third one I’m absolutely sure is somewhere on my blog, as I has a decently long argument with another person about it, who was defending the two cis women.

Girl I’ve seen several blogs with receipts of the exact same shit coming from your camp. It’s heinous no matter where it comes from, doesn’t mean I think it’s right coming from trans folk and activists, but don’t go around throwing stones in glass houses - you all are just as guilty, some of the most fucked up misogynistic shit I’ve seen said have come from the TERF camp, gotten some pretty misogynistic shit thrown from your group at myself too, because I didn’t agree with you all. Unlike you though, that doesn’t mean I’m gonna imply every individual TERF are any of those things, because I do understand you’re individuals .

Also I’m not an activist or trans - just a woman with opinions sometimes on a blog; it ain’t that deep.

learning the truth about TERFs is like learning the resident evil witch is just a nice old lady that wants to live peacefully and have basic rights and a herb garden

[dragon-says-goodnight]

Well, you’re adding context now which wasn’t added or even implied in the original that I replied to. That I can’t read additional context from your mind is hardly my fault. But then, that’s also why we discuss things, so one party can add further context to their argument and the other can reply.

As far as I know; there wasn’t much secular marriage before Christianity. Atheism wasn’t exactly big in bygone eras. They just followed other religions - religious marriage, whether Christian or not, isn’t secular, by definition.

And marriage was historically often about politics in higher class society, economical and about uniting two families, or starting a family together, heck some people get married due to legalities. Not to mention that a lot of them were even arranged- an arranged marriage can hardly be about “just two people boinking”

Secular marriage today isn’t even about that - they’re atheist, why on earth would they need to get married for that? If that’s all it was, they certainly wouldn’t spend money and time on a wedding. I think you need to talk to some non-Christians, whether they follow a different religion or are atheist, and actually hear why they chose to get married, rather then jump to your own conclusion about people you clearly know little about.

You are aware there’s Christian marriages being dissolved through divorce all the time right? It all depends on your denomination. Unless you’re gonna “No True Scotsman” this and claim those Christians aren’t actually Christian? Also Hinduism, as far as I’ve understood it; didn’t allow for divorce either back in the day.

Your claim that men and women were equal in Christian marriages back in the day is laughable - even if you can make the claim that wives had more rights in a Christian marriage than others, in comparison to todays standards, there’s nothing there where you can apply the label “equal”. Here, straight from scripture: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands". Nothing about that, describes a marriage between equals. Heck it’s even relatively recent that marital rape was considered rape. True marital equality that we see today, came from secular values, not religious ones.

Now, a lot of secular marriages in the west *do* take a lot from Christian marriage, I won’t argue with you there. But the same can be said for secular marriages in countries with other majority religions - they take a lot from the majority religions there as well. It’s because religion is often not separated from politics and education, and therefore influence the culture immensely.

So if you want to see secular marriage being more separate from Christian traditions, I’d advice advocating for more separation from religion and the general culture, separation of religion from politics, separation of religion from schools, encourage people who aren’t Christian to use phrases such as “happy holidays”, even “happy Yule”, rather than “merry Christmas”, and any other ways you can think of to separate your religion from the general culture of your nation, so that your traditions and beliefs aren’t kinda forced into non-Christian peoples lives, whether they want it to or not. Essentially you can’t expect a country to be culturally Christian, and then complain that those who doesn’t believe pick up things from the culture where they live, get educated and raised.

Absolutely disgusting segment on NBC about “polyamorous” people raising families together and having kids calling it “polyfamory” Like?? You’re gonna mess up those kids so bad and also like…why?

But this lady on the news is calling it “so called traditional families” and “There’s no hierarchy in this type of marriage/ family like with so called traditional families”

Why do we stray from Christ??

[dragon-says-goodnight]

Except that’s not what you said, you didn’t say that Christian marriage is somehow unique to other marriages. You made the claim that secular marriages is appropriated from Christians. This makes no sense whatsoever.

You’re also defining marriage by modern Christian values, claiming it’s the only valid marriage. What you’re saying here, and what you were saying, are two completely different things.

Also I was just using your own logic against you, you were the one claiming secular people had appropriated from Christians. If that’s the case, Christians also appropriated marriage. One cannot be true, without the other being true. If one is untrue, so is the other, which I agree on. Neither Christians or secular people appropriated marriage.

Absolutely disgusting segment on NBC about “polyamorous” people raising families together and having kids calling it “polyfamory” Like?? You’re gonna mess up those kids so bad and also like…why?

But this lady on the news is calling it “so called traditional families” and “There’s no hierarchy in this type of marriage/ family like with so called traditional families”

Why do we stray from Christ??

[dragon-says-goodnight]

I think that’s part of why there’s two definitions - as far as I understand it you don’t have to fit both definitions, just one of them. So not really patronising at all - as said if, theoretically, a subsection of Norwegians had kept to their old ways, they’d fit definition one, as vikings lived in tribes.

Independence from the country they live in? Also Sami live in in three other countries (obviously there’s Sami all over the world but you get what I mean). There’s also several tribes of Sami, and there’s currently nine different Sami languages still in use today. The swedes living in Norway might as well try and declare their independence, like I don’t see how that’s feasible. Especially as they’re also Norwegian/Swedish/Finish/Russian, not just Sami.

I’m not too familiar with Sami tribes, but they were nomads, and a tribe usually consisted of five - six families living and travelling together. Don’t know much beyond that.

Quite sure a tribe electing a king, would be a chieftain. Don’t think just changing the title to king would change much to be honest. Boundary between tribe and state would be amount of people I’d wager, probably also something about how the hierarchy is made up, and certain cultural norms, though I’m really not knowledgable to give more than rather vague guesswork on the matter.

As for why a native minority doesn’t necessarily have indigenous status if their culture and such has been mostly erased - because they don’t need it. The classification is used to give certain legal protections and help in maintaining and protecting important cultural sites, their language, customs, in some cases way of life, and so on. You can make the argument that the definition is too restrictive and therefore excludes people who need these kinds of protections and help however.

Oh I think it’s a pretty interesting discussion to have! So keep questioning and I’ll do my best to reason it out with you :D

I’d hardly call it American-centric, as it’s a definition made in Norway in 1990. It’s a lot more Sami-focused than anything else to be fair, as that was the political issue being focused on at the time. I think the aspect of colonialism was added to be inclusive of indigenous people elsewhere - since it doesn’t exactly fit into the history of the Sami. The definition was in large part codified into law, as I understand it, to help grant them legal protections. Also it’s funny you should say it’s Americanised - the original definition taken from the UN that it was based on, was criticised for not really fitting the European experience with its indigenous peoples, therefore it was changed and Norway took to use these two definitions.

As for the Sami being colonised or not; it’s a rather complicated thing, it’s hard to say exactly when the Sami settled in north Norway; and the Sami had good relations with the Viking’s and Norwegians in general, until the early 1700s where they were being forced to concert to Christianity, and having their own sacred artefacts burned; such as their shamanic drums. And it got especially bad during the 20th century. The north was in the past Sami-lands, and the Norwegians spread further north, but it wasn’t like a battle took place or anything and the Sami were conquered and forced under Norwegian rule at the time - the two people lived side by side.

The World’s Indigenous Peoples

This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.

by @VisualCap

[dragon-says-goodnight]

Lemme bring up both definitions, and I’ll highlight the parts that doesn’t fit Norwegians.

“A tribe people in independent states who through their own social, cultural and economical relationships, separates themselves from other parts of the national community, and whose status wholly or partially are regulated by their own customs and traditions, especially by special laws or regulations”

The other definition is:

“People in independent states who are considered original because they descend from the people who lived in the country, or a geographic region which the country belongs, in the moment in time when the conquering or colonisation happened or the current state lines were established and whom, independently of their legal position, has kept some or all of their own social, economical, cultural and political institutions.”

The first part of the second definition both counts and doesn’t count for Norwegians - it counts for Norwegians in the southern part, but the northern part was Sami territory which Norwegians took over. It’s also a bit complicated as Norway itself wasn’t independent from 1397 until 1905, so you could argue the country was conquered, and therefore Norwegians as a whole fit the first part of the second definition.

If, hypothetically, during the Christianisation of Norway, there has been a subsection of Norwegians who had kept to the old faith and the old customs that has endured to this day, you could make the argument that group of Norwegians were an Indigineous people, I think, since they would have fit into both definitions.

The minorities in Britain, as far as I’m aware doesn’t fit the first definition at all, unless you want to make an argument that Scottish clans were tribes, and while they certainly fit parts of the second definition, I don’t think they fit the latter part, though feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken.

In some ways, I’d say that the indigenous people are the most successful ethnic minorities- culturally that is. The difference between the two is that ethnic minorities are either, recent immigrants to that region, or an ethnic minority that has lost their culture and customs almost entirely, essentially cases where they’ve been entirely integrated by the majority group. Victims of a successful cultural genocide, if you will. And that is very much the case for a large portion of Europe, even its majority ethnic groups, during the time when a lot of countries were forced to become Christian.

The World’s Indigenous Peoples

This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.

by @VisualCap

[dragon-says-goodnight]

I disagree. The Sami in my country have their own parliament - they partake in both Norwegian society, and also within their own culture and traditions.

The Sami parliament acts as a way for them to have cultural autonomy. It’s responsible for such things as the development of their languages, responsibility for the culture, protection for cultural heritage, and a few other things.

They don’t consider themselves to be only Sami, they’re Sami and Norwegian. Being a minority group doesn’t mean you have to be oppressed you know. I wouldn’t say the Sami are oppressed in Norway today - but they certainly have been in the past, with their cultural artefacts being destroyed, their children physically punished at school if they spoke Saami and so on. Ironically, during the period of Norwegianization in which this was occurring, more and more Sami stopped identifying as Norwegian - while before this policy, and after, more of them also identify as Norwegian.

The Sami has no interest in getting a piece of land for 50k people and be independent of Norway, as the majority of them consider themselves Norwegian as well as Sami.

It hasn’t even been implied that indigenous people is synonymous with ethnic minority. I mean, I don’t know how you could come to that conclusion at all reading the definition I gave you. (Though I do suspect that there’s some ethnic minorities who isn’t indigenous people mixed in on that map though)

The World’s Indigenous Peoples

This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.

by @VisualCap

[dragon-says-goodnight]

From what I can find with a quick search, which is not necessarily accurate, the Rusyn aren’t indigenous, just a minority ethnic group? Am I understanding correctly?

I actually can’t find anything by searching for an indigenous people living in Slovakia on Google, at least not in English xD

The World’s Indigenous Peoples

This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.

by @VisualCap

[dragon-says-goodnight]

To answer a large portion of this, let me just copy paste first something I wrote on another re log of this post:

This is why our classification makes more sense. We don’t talk about indigenous people, we talk about “urfolk” - meaning “ancient people”, which is defined in two ways. One of them is pretty much the same as in English, being a people that lived in a geographical location before the conquering or colonisation of that area, and who has kept some or all of their own social, economical, cultural and political institutions.

“A tribe people in independent states who through their own social, cultural and economical relationships, separates themselves from other parts of the national community, and whose status wholly or partially are regulated by their own customs and traditions, especially by special laws or regulations”

There is a clear definition to us what Indigenous People mean, and that’s why I don’t really like the English terminology, because it’s downright misleading to what it actually means.

As @alaija pointed out in her reblog, the Maori are considered Indigenous despite not having been in New Zealand for 700 years yet, but the Japanese aren’t considered as such despite being in Japan for 2 - 3 thousand years. And that is because they fit the before-mentioned definitions.

The World’s Indigenous Peoples

This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.

by @VisualCap

[dragon-says-goodnight]

If you look at the top of the map, there is noted that there is little to no data on a number of Indigenous people in Europe, apart from the Sami.

Also Scots, Welsh, Irish, Manx and Cornish are not an Indigenous people - indigenous people doesn’t just mean that they’re native to the area; it has a specific definition, and none of those groups fits that definition.

I’ll admit I don’t know enough about the Eastern European groups to remark on them, but if they’re an indigenous people, they might be one of the European ones where there’s no recent enough data, same for the Caribbean ones.

The World’s Indigenous Peoples

This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.

by @VisualCap

[dragon-says-goodnight]

That is because indigenous people doesn’t just mean indigenous to the region.

It’s a stupid name, because it certainly gives off the completely wrong idea to what it means.

So yes, Germans are indigenous to Germany, but they are not an Indigenous People, just like Han Chinese are indigenous to a region in Northern China, but they’re not an Indigenous People; because neither group fits the definition.

The World’s Indigenous Peoples

This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.

by @VisualCap

[dragon-says-goodnight]

You’re misreading it, they’re not claiming that the Crimean Tartars (indigenous to Crimea) or the Basques (indigenous to the Basque county) are indigenous to Scandinavia.

They’re saying that the Sami, indigenous to Scandinavia (and parts of Russia) have recent data, and unlike them, other European indigenous groups such as the Basques and the Crimean Tartars doesn’t.

The World’s Indigenous Peoples

This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.

by @VisualCap

[dragon-says-goodnight]

This is why our classification makes more sense. We don’t talk about indigenous people, we talk about “urfolk” - meaning “ancient people”, which is defined in two ways. One of them is pretty much the same as in English, being a people that lived in a geographical location before the conquering or colonisation of that area, and who has kept some or all of their own social, economical, cultural and political institutions.

The second definition, is as follows (sorry for clumsy translation):

“A tribe people in independent states who through their own social, cultural and economical relationships, separates themselves from other parts of the national community, and whose status wholly or partially are regulated by their own customs and traditions, especially by special laws or regulations”.

And in original Norwegian: “stammefolk i selvstendige stater som gjennom sine sosiale, kulturelle og økonomiske forhold skiller seg fra andre deler av det nasjonale fellesskap, og hvis status helt eller delvis er regulert av deres egne skikker og tradisjoner, eller av særlige lover eller forskrifter”

By these definitions, classifying some people indigenous to a region as an indigenous people, while not classifying other people indigenous to a region as such makes a lot more sense. Which is why I think “indigenous people” is kind of a silly name - because it doesn’t just mean indigenous to a region, so it’s pretty misleading.

The World’s Indigenous Peoples

This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.

by @VisualCap