#god those posts make me angry

[ameliafuckinjones]

Interesting tidbit from Magnalia Christi Americana by Cotton Mather, which showcases what the early colonists of New England thought about old England:

They pretty much saw themselves and their settlement as an extension of the old country even as they were thousands of miles from it. And didn't want to separate from it so much as they wanted to become an ideal version of it. I imagine this sentiment stayed with the colonies even as they were in the throes of Revolution and especially during the setup of the US government. Good info to understanding the foundational relationship between America and England pre-revolution and pre-Enlightenment (though this book was published in 1702, around the age of Enlightment, it is in spirit an in depth analysis and recollection of early American religious history from the viewpoint of a late 17th/early 18th century puritan minister). The language, though, is what really interests me, "the little daughter of New England in America," "Mother England," "local secession, yet not a separation." and "Undesired local distance from her dear England". Family, though not separated emotionally, are distant physically against their will, and the child is still loyal to the mother country, at least from the pov of the English settlers. There is no true resentment for the mother country yet. I highlight this because it has become a sort of myth - especially in real life - that there was incredibly bad blood from the start when it's far more nuanced than that. The resentment that was built was gradual, it didn't happen all at once, and when things finally did "explode" emotionally speaking, it wasn't nearly as violent as it could have been. Of course, relations between America and England were strained after the Revolution (and 1812), but not so much that they wouldn't do trade deals immediately after the fact or make efforts to mend old wounds or even form a military alliance. I think the "bad blood" between them is often overstated, which turns England into a spiteful, mean creature, and America into some strange pitiful caricature of himself (or vice versa). The former is far to level-headed for that and the latter to sentimental, and for that reason I always try to approach their relationship with a bit more nuance (and realism?) in lieu of letting my fandom brain, hungry for dramatic angst, take over.

The main point is that yes things were rough between them, especially circa 1812, but not as rough as any of the complicated relationships England has with his other kin or neighbors with whom he shares centuries' worth of animosity. I think it's probably why he was comfortable and confident enough to make such a concerted effort with America (via Rapprochement and Dollar Princessess marrying into his aristocracy among other things) even after the Revolution and War of 1812 (and after it was determined that America would not be collapsing anytime soon and crawling back to him on begging hands and knees), because he knew that things could always be much worse and he was smart enough probably to understand that many of America's motivations and ideologies were inspired by him, even if he was perplexed by such childish rebellion.

I believe l've already made a post about why he didn't respond to the Revolution in the fashion America might have wanted him to and the conclusion was that he obviously did care but was under the assumption that America would fail and so he dedicated his energy to what he saw as the bigger threat in Europe. With the analysis above, I'm simply bringing forth the argument (again) that America as a child and a teen idolized England enough to emulate him and become a better version or at least his definition of a better version, and the seed to do so was there from the very beginning. And that for this reason, the relationship isn't as venomous as most make it seem. Both parties very much wanted to connect with each other for a myriad of reasons and did just that even with minor hiccups. It took centuries for France and England to reach such a point (though I'm sure they're both glad that they eventually did). It took America and England a few decades even after the war of 1812. That two stubborn and prideful nations would quickly let bygones be bygones after war, and separation is a miracle and evidence that even with minor and major contention, there is an innate desire to be closer despite everything.

I can go on and on about this, but I think I'll stop here.

[vernard]

i really wish i could enjoy x-men comics more but. Wow they manage to piss me off more than any other comics series ive ever touched

[rotomartsblog]

I hate a lot of things about the Camp Camp fandom when it was at its peak but one of the things that pissed me off the most was the fandom’s portrayal of Nerris

[bedforddanes75]

i reblog one Weird looking post and all of a sudden im getting recommended ed blogs FUCK OFF

[bumblingbabooshka]

This is literally one of my favorite moments for both Harry Kim and B’Elanna characterization. I think a lot of people forget how soft hearted and altruistic B’Elanna specifically can be while Harry, of course a friendly and sweet individual, devotes himself most often to the mission, his friends and Starfleet’s ideals. Harry’s been shown to be much more down-to-earth and less fantastical in his thinking than either Tom or B’Elanna. The only time he gets in major trouble with Janeway and breaks protocol is because he wants to be with a woman. This is distinctly different to me than Tom’s (attempting to save an alien world) and B’Elanna’s (giving a robot race the ability to reproduce) transgressions. His other biggest infraction is begin a mutiny which he does in order to save Janeway & Chakotay. He doesn’t get in trouble for this which is why I put it last but again it seems different from Tom or B’Elanna to me because it’s For The Ship it’s For The Captain it’s a crime which displays his loyalty to Janeway instead of one which demonstrates him going against her ideologically (as shown by the lack of punishment). In that way I think B’Elanna and Harry balance each other well. B’Elanna is a person who seems very nervous and defensive when in conversation with others, who thinks of herself as a person who is ‘bad’ and doesn’t believe in herself much. Meanwhile Harry seems to be at ease with most anyone he speaks to, attempting to befriend even Seven of Nine right away. He’s confident in himself and his abilities and out of everyone (yes even Tom who seems most often to just become frustrated) would be the one to push B’Elanna and break through her defenses. That’s to say it makes perfect sense that B’Elanna would be absolutely enamored by this person who views her as inspiring, would be struck by that while Harry views it as just a weird question. 

[themyscirah]

Thinking about current continuity Vanessa and just getting pissed off again

Like one, LET HER REST oh my god dc you ruin her FUCKING life like an asshole only to bring her back as a villain after she finally got out oh my god-

But also like its just so bad. This is a whole other woman with her name like why are we doing this. Like first you kill her mom (JULIA NOOO) and erase her YEARS of history growing up around diana (the thing that actually made her villain turn [if you can call it that w the level of manipulation involved] interesting and fucking heartbreaking) for some shitty "oh I saved you we were friends" run of the mill whatever. Then to use that and say Nessie had a crush on her OWN SISTER (Diana, so like informally adopted, but still 😡) now????

And then they took away her curls and made her a redhead but not even the realistic kind. DC SHE DOESNT LOOK LIKE THAT

It just makes me so mad. Freaking guys. They could have used another name like oh my god. She's not even the first silver swan why the fuck would they do that if they're not going to explore her history w diana (which she no longer has!!!!) or how intensely fucked up everything got for her. What is even the fucking point of this then other to drag a main character of the ww supporting cast through the mud again for genuinely no reason. They could have easily had her be Valerie Beaudry (sorry Val) instead or just MADE UP ANOTHER NAME because it's obvious that no one actually cared about her as a character they just wanted the wondy villain back so like !!!!!!!!!! Why even bother

[blupengu]

Y’all is Hollow Knight hard or do I just suck because oh my god??

[atlantis-just-drowned]

If no one reblog this fucking alphabet soon I'm going feral and close my ask box people need to learn how to use this website and stop liking posts

[weregonnabecoolbeans]

Me: *Reading QoAaD*

The Cohort: *does cohorty things*

Downworlders and others who are aware of mundane history: Hey! This is not good! Like at all! This will just get worse! I know this because this has literally happened before and your stubborn refusal to admit that mundane history matters is gonna lead to some really tragic shit!!!

Shadowhunters (who are basically an endangered species rn because of two wars they fought only 5 years ago that happened because they fell for the exact same propaganda from a man just like Dearborn and the Cohort) :*falls for Circle Cohort propaganda*

Shadowhunters: Uhhhh you’re not trustworthy or something…shadowhunters are the best! We could never be wrong!! Let’s continue to scapegoat entire groups of people because we obviously are the only people worth anything at all!!!

Magnus Bane: *the most exasperated and exhausted sigh to ever be sighed*

Me: Wow this book is a great example of why learning from history is important in order to stop it from repeating itself.

Me: *thinks about everything that is CURRENTLY HAPPENING IN THE ACTUAL REAL WORLD RIGHT NOW*

Me: *through tears and gritted teeth* Good thing this book is fictional 🥲

[bluesey-182]

haha major yikes. we're supposed to have family dinner at my grandparents on sunday for father's day and my dad doesn't know if it's just my parents and us or if the whole family is invited, and the latter will be a problem bc i blocked my cousin on absolutely everything months ago with zero explanation and that will be suuuuper fucking awkward if they're gonna be there

[hevendor]

I've said this probably over a year ago but it still happens time and time again to this day where I randomly see someone say something so stupid or act completely a fool in some way and I click on their blog out of morbid curiosity to see what kind of person they are and like 80% of the time........ They are into pwaa... Why is this the case I'm begging to know why....

[kuuhaiyu]

i really can't emphasize how heartbreaking it is that the recent harassment campaign against @/90-ghost (among others; see: 1, 2, 3) has led to well-meaning people telling others not to listen to him. he is one of the most visible survivors of the genocide here on tumblr. his entire journey of escape is so well documented! and yet, it only took a few people confidently pointing fingers to create an entire witch hunt accusing him and other palestinians of being disreputable scammers and liars.

i can't help but feel like the reason why people were SO eager to believe those accusations, is because it was uncomfortable to see posts from palestinians every day asking for our time, attention, money, and support; so when someone presented the perfect excuse to ignore all those posts and asks while also taking the high ground, people just LEAPED onto it. they wanted to believe it, because it would be more comfortable.

honestly, i understand feeling overwhelmed by bad news, by the number of asks and messages in your inbox, and so on and so forth. i understand needing to set boundaries for yourself so you don't get burned out. i think this is really when you have to have a set of principles to fall back on, even when you're tired, uncomfortable, angry, and/or sad. so here's the one i suggest, which has been working for me best: don't make your discomfort with this situation into someone else's problem, and for god's sake don't make it a public problem.

if you hate seeing fundraiser posts or news about gaza, i can't emphasize this enough, JUST MOVE ON. KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND SCROLL PAST! all you have to do is absolutely nothing. which is what you were doing anyway, so it shouldn't be hard. if you don't have the heart to read, or reblog, or share, or donate, or support in other ways, at the very least, don't obstruct the efforts of people who ARE trying to make a difference. this is, quite literally, the least you can do.

[vaguenotions]

Oh, yes, I just love your unannounced sleepover where you both come back from the bar after carefully avoiding telling me that's where you were going, and also neglecting to tell me when you'd be home! I definitely do not want to knock you on your ass and take a bat to your dome! That would be rude and unnecessary :)

Oh yes, please do start talking about shit amongst yourselves and make me feel isolated and othered in ny own room! These moments are what I live for, of course. Naturally. Who would ever have any issues with this arrangement at all?

[mbat]

dude its twice now that ive tried to play origins multiplayer minecraft servers that happen to be mandatory roleplay for some reason and its just wild that they like, want you to come up with a whole entire person before even playing, especially with worlds that feel... bare bones as fuck, from the information they give

like they give an origin story of the world and maybe like one or two sentences on the races or cultures, and then theyre like 'okay now give your character an entire in depth personality, backstory, family history, job, life goal, childhood dream, credit card number-'

like... with what info ?? with what basis??

the second one ive joined isnt as strict as the first one, seeing as i joined the minecraft server before i even realized there was character applications, and no one really paid me any mind at all or acknowledged me

but there was one i joined like 2 years ago that you had to get your application approved before gaining access to the server, and they direct you to their wiki for reading up on the world and stuff... but again, bare bones as fuck. and i exaggerated before slightly, but fully seriously they asked me 'oh, and where did your characters origin come from? their grandparents getting infected? how did they become this way' and its like. DUDE I DONT KNOW, WHO CARES. WHO WILL ASK ME THAT IN THE ROLEPLAY??? like where am i supposed to even get any of this shit from, the two paragraphs you typed about the world origin story??

i didnt finish the application because that was stupid and it wasnt worth it imo. shame, cause the custom origins were cool, but theres always other origins mods and servers

like... i guess other people work different from me, cause clearly these servers have people in them that somehow came up with functioning characters, but that aint me. if i make a character in a game, their personality and story comes to me while im playing, through their experiences and appearance and the choices im given in the world.

and also literally no one is ever going to fucking ask 'lol so how did your bloodline get mutated?'

[i-dreamed-i-had-a-son]

A thousand times yes! This gave me so much to think about. Specifically, your point about how his name represents his old self/identity is very interesting to me, given what we see from him with Cosette towards the end of the novel.

I find it striking that Valjean tells Cosette to refer to him as "Monsieur Jean," out of all things. It makes sense that, because of his conversation with Marius and their belief that he must be cut out of Cosette's life, he wouldn't allow her to call him "Father." And, even though he literally has a full, sobbing breakdown in front of Marius when it seems like Cosette will find out about his past (the only time we see him cry in front of someone else, I'm pretty sure?), he doesn't go by Fauchelevent to her. Cosette likely would've found that less unusual, since we see her refer to him as "my father Fauchelevent" quite naturally, and it would make sense that Valjean would want to minimize her suspicions. But his great denied desire, as he expresses to Marius, is to be a part of a family; that's exactly what he felt he couldn't do as Fauchelevent. Keeping that name would mean he would always be worried that "the mask would suddenly be torn away," and he would be driven out as a monster. He wants to be accepted and loved for who he truly is, and while this isn't by any means complete honesty, in confessing to Marius and dropping the alias with Cosette, maybe he feels a little closer to what he's longed for.

There's also the social and metatextual significance of having Cosette call him "Monsieur Jean." First, in dropping his alias (which supplied Cosette's maiden name), he further severs any perceptible social tie between the two of them. "Jean," as you mentioned above, is a homonym of gens, which is fitting, since JVJ views himself as having become "just another person" to Cosette. And yet, calling him by his first name indicates some level of familiarity; social norms at the time meant that formal address used the last name. "Monsieur Jean" is oddly straddling the line between distant and personal (as Valjean himself is attempting to do).

Maybe most interesting of all is that, as many have noticed, Hugo almost exclusively refers to JVJ by his full name, Jean Valjean. This is one of the only instances in which the last name is dropped, which is part of why it stood out so much on my readthrough. It feels noticably more intimate, but also incomplete. And I think it ties into what (as you mentioned above) his last name means: "voilà Jean/gens": "behold the man." He's not ready for Cosette to know the full truth about who he is, so narratively, it's fitting that the withheld last name (which would allow her to learn about his past) is one which itself references a full and raw perception. It was first used of the suffering Christ, naked and humiliated and condemned and innocent; Valjean, in his fear and self-loathing, does not allow that revelation of himself.

Les Mis Hidden Name Meanings: Jean Valjean

Every Les Mis character’s name is either a pun or has some deep symbolic meaning– or both at once! Jean Valjean’s name has a ton of layers so let’s dive in.

When we’re first introduced to him, Hugo tells us that his name is quote “a contraction of voilà Jean, or “here is Jean.”” We’re told that he was named after his father, and that his family name probably began as a nickname.

The word “Jean” in french sounds like the word “gens,” which means “people.” So his last name is a pun meant to make you think “viola les gens”/ “here are people.”

The most obvious layer to his name is that Jean Valjean is basically John Doe. He is the anonymous Everyman. His sister’s name is Jeanne, so she’s basically Jane Doe. They aren’t special or exceptional or unusual; they’re just behold! The regular people.

In fact his name is so common-sounding that it's a plot point. Champmathieu, the man who is mistaken for Jean Valjean, has a name that the police connect with his. Javert theorizes that "Champ" is a version of "Jean" in a specific accent, while Mathieu was actually Jean Valjean's sister's maiden name. ("Champ" is also the French word for "field.") The fact that Jean Valjean is a peasant everyman makes it easy for others in his position to be conflated with him.

But the other layer is that this is all an elaborate pun biblical reference!

When Pontius Pilate presents a bound Jesus Christ to the crowd before his crucifixion, he says the words “ecce homo” or “Here is the man!”/”behold the man!”

“Voila Jean” or “here is Jean!”/”behold Jean!” is meant to be a reference to that.

During his death scene Jean Voila-Jean even references the “Ecce homo” line explicitly, gesturing at a crucifix and saying:

“Voilà le grand martyr.”

Which Isabel Hapgood translates as “behold the great martyr.”

At another point in the same scene Marius says to Cosette:

“He has sacrificed himself. Viola l’Homme. Behold the man.”

But more references to that biblical moment appear throughout the novel; Jean Valjean is associated with it constantly, all the time. It’s one of his defining biblical allusions. He’ll be trying to live anonymously, or under an alias– and then suddenly his true name and criminal past will be revealed, he’ll be revealed to be ‘the man,’ and some great horrible act of martyrdom will follow.

Sometimes Jean Valjean is the one revealing his own identity, but sometimes Inspector Javert is put into the role of Pontius Pilate. Javert himself explicitly makes that comparison– Jean Valjean as Jesus, Javert as Pontius Pilate– when he’s contemplating suicide.

And this ties into one of the largest differences between the book and the stage musical.

In the musical, “prisoner 24601” is the name that represents Jean Valjean’s dehumanization–while “Jean Valjean” is the name he uses while standing up for his own humanity. He will be called 24601, and proudly declare that “my name is Jean Valjean” to assert he’s still a person.

And while this is a great storytelling choice, it’s almost the opposite of how the name “Jean Valjean” is handled in the book.

Because in the book…. Jean Valjean IS the name that dehumanizes him. Jean Valjean is the name that he’s running from. The name that Javert uses when he’s insulting him, the name that bigots use when they’re threatening him, the name that ignorant people use when they’re mocking him – it’s not 24601, it’s Jean Valjean.

And there’s a special kind of agony to that.

The name that is being used to torture, humiliate, and dehumanize him isn’t 24601– it’s his name.

He thinks of it as a “fatal name,” as a punishment. Living under that name is living in hell. When Jean Valjean is living under one of his aliases, concealing his identity, he thinks:

That which he had always feared most of all in his hours of self-communion, during his sleepless nights, was to ever hear that name {jean Valjean] pronounced; he had said to himself, that that would be the end of all things for him; that on the day when that name made its reappearance it would cause his new life to vanish from about him, and—who knows?—perhaps even his new soul from within him.

It’s no wonder that he ends up internalizing the way society views him, and developing so much fear and hatred of himself. He’s grown to see his name as just….well, ecce homo, behold the man. His name is just the two words people say before they violently punish him.

Names and namelessness are a major theme in Les Mis, and he’s the character who has the most complex relationship with his own names. He has a legal name, but it’s used to torture him, and he has a series of false names he uses to escape torture.

If I were to describe Jean Valjean– one of the most complex characters in all of literature, in one word, that word would be “grief.”

The criminal justice system takes everything from him, including things he wasn’t aware he was able to lose. His name, the last connection he had to his family and his old identity, gets warped into this thing needs to view with fear and horror. The thing society despises isn’t 24601, isn’t a number they’ve placed on him – the thing they despise is Jean Valjean, some intrinsic inherent part of himself. He isn’t hated for what he did, he’s hated for what he is, and that is something he can never escape.

{But speaking of complexity we’ve actually barely scratched the surface of how Jean Valjean reacts to names, because he spends most of the novel living under a series of nicknames aliases. And guess what! Each of these names also has some elaborate symbolic meaning! If you’re interested in more posts covering his different aliases, feel free to leave a comment in the replies!}

[thanks for reading! For more in-depth analysis, check out the @lesmisletters readalong or join our discord server!]

[odinsblog]

“I first started noticing the journalists dying on Instagram. I'm a journalist, I'm Arab, and I've reported on war. A big part of my community is other Arab journalists who do the same thing.

And when someone dies, news travels fast. Recently, I pulled up the list that the Committee to Protect Journalists has been keeping and looked at it for the first time. There are 95 journalists and media workers on it as of today.

Almost everyone on it is Palestinian. Scrolling through, I started to get angry. These were the people carrying the burden of documenting this whole war.

Israel is not allowing foreign journalists into Gaza, except on rare occasions with military escorts. These people's names are being buried in a giant list that keeps growing. What I want to do is lift some of them off the list for a moment and give you a glimpse of who they were and the work they made.

I'll start with Sadi Mansour. Sadi was the director of Al-Quds News Network, and he posted a 22-second video on November 18. That was a report from the war, but it also gave me a picture into his marriage.

Sadi's wearing his press vest and looks exhausted. He's explaining that cell service and the Internet keep getting cut off, and it's often impossible to text or call anyone, including his wife. So they've resorted to using handwritten letters to communicate while he's out reporting, sending them back and forth with neighbors or colleagues.

He ends the video with a picture of one of these letters from his wife. In it, she writes,

‘Me and the kids stayed up waiting for you until the morning, and you didn't come home. We were really sad.

I kept telling the kids, Look, he's coming. But you didn't show up. May God forgive you.

Come home tomorrow and eat with us. Do you want me to make you kebab or maybe kapse? Bring your friends with you, it's okay.

And give Azeez the battery to charge. What do you think about me sending you handwritten letters with messenger pigeons from now on? Ha ha ha.

I'm just kidding. I want to curse at you, but we're living in a war. Too bad.

Okay, I love you. Bye.’

A few hours after he shared that letter, Sadie and his co-worker Hassouna Saleem were at Sadie's home, when they were killed by an Israeli air strike that hit his house.

His wife and kids, who weren't there, survived.

Gaza is tiny, and the journalist community is really close. Reading the list, you can see all the connections between people. Like with Brahim Lafi.

Brahim was a photojournalist, one of the first journalists to die. He was killed while reporting on October 7. He was just 21, still new to journalism.

On his Instagram, you can see that in his posts just a few years ago, he was still practicing his photography, taking pictures of coffee cups and flowers. Then he started doing beautiful portraits and action shots. You can really feel him starting to become a journalist.

Clicking around on Instagram, I found a tribute post about Brahim from his co-worker Rushdie Sarraj. In this photo, Brahim staring intently at the back of a camera, his face lit up by the light from the viewfinder. He looks so young.

The caption reads, My assistant is gone. Brahim is gone. Rushdie himself was a beloved journalist and filmmaker.

And I know that because he's also on the list. He was killed just two weeks after Brahim. I read the tribute post to him too.

I saw this over and over again. Journalists posting tributes, who were then killed themselves soon after. And a tribute goes up for them.

And then the pattern continues.

Thank you.

Something else I saw over and over on the list, journalists later in the war who had become aware that they could be making their last reports. They'd say it at the beginning of their videos. And those were the hardest to watch, especially when it was true.

One video like that was posted by Ayat Hadduro. Ayat was a freelance journalist and video blogger. Her videos before the war covered a wide range from what I can tell, interviews about women in politics.

She even appeared in a commercial for ketchup-flavored chips. She clearly liked being in front of the camera. Once the war started, Ayat's pivoted to covering bombings and food shortages.

On November 20, she posted a video report from her home. You can hear the airstrikes hitting very close to where she is. It's scary.

‘This is likely my last video. Today, the occupation forces dropped phosphorus bombs on Beit Lahya area and frightening sound bombs. They dropped letters from the sky, ordering everyone to evacuate.

Everyone ran into the streets in the craziest way. No one knows where to go.

But everyone else has evacuated. They don't know where they're going. The situation is so scary.

What's happening is so tough, and may God have mercy on us.’

She was killed later that day.

Targeting journalists, in case you didn't know, is a war crime. So far, the Committee to Protect Journalists has found that three of the journalists on the list were explicitly targeted by the IDF, the Israeli military. Investigations by the Washington Post and Reuters, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations have also raised serious questions in these three cases.

And the Committee to Protect Journalists is investigating 10 other killings. When we reached out to the IDF for comments, they said, quote, the IDF has never, and will never, deliberately target journalists. That's the answer they always give in these situations.

Meanwhile, dozens of seasoned reporters have fled Gaza. Journalists who worked for Al Jazeera, the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, Agence France-Presse. So many media offices were demolished in Israeli airstrikes that the Committee to Protect Journalists stopped counting.

It's not just individual lives that have been destroyed. It's an entire infrastructure.

Thank you.

The name on the list that was hardest for me to look at was Issam Abdullah, because I'd crossed paths with him once. Issam was a Lebanese journalist, a video journalist for Reuters for many, many years. He had just won an award for coverage of Ukraine.

I'm Lebanese and still report there sometimes, and I'd worked with Issam a couple of summers ago. He helped me film a sort of random story in Beirut. I was interviewing this entrepreneur who had started a sperm freezing company after an accident where he spilled a tray of hot coffee on his private area, burning himself.

I know, ridiculous. It was a really silly shoot. Right after we said cut and started to rap, Issam started this whole bit about being in his late 30s, reconsidering his own sperm quality and everything he now realized he was doing to hurt it, and no one could stop laughing.

It was a really good day that felt good to remember and to remember him that way. Issam was killed by the IDF on October 13. His death was one of the three that the Committee to Protect Journalists has identified as a targeted killing.

He was fired upon by an Israeli tank while standing in an empty field on the Lebanon-Israel border with a small group of other journalists. Everyone was wearing press vests with cameras out. They were covering the Hezbollah part of this war.

A few other journalists were injured in the attack, which was captured on video. The IDF says they were responding to firing from Hezbollah, not targeting the journalists. But multiple investigations, including by Reuters, the United Nations, Amnesty International and the AFP, found no evidence of any firing from the location of the journalists before the IDF shot at them.

The journalists in the group and video footage confirmed that there was no military activity near them. I had only met Issam once, barely knew him, but it affected me so much when he died. I know that he understood the risks of his job, but somehow it still felt so random and unfair that he would be struck down like that, following the rules, wearing his press vest and helmet, and a pack of reporters on a sunny day in an open field.

I find myself thinking about him all the time. His last Instagram post was commemorating another journalist, this iconic reporter Shereen Abou Aql who had been killed by the IDF. When I first saw that post in October, I thought how ironic because a week later, Isam also was killed by the IDF.

But then, after spending time reading the list, I realized how common this had become. I still haven't finished going through the list and looking up the people on it. I keep finding things that stick with me, like the funny way this one radio host would cut off a caller who was rambling on for too long.

A tweet from reporter Al-Abdallah that quoted Sylvia Plath. It read, What ceremony of wars can patch the havoc? I'm going to keep going down the list, even though this story is over now.

Just for myself. My own way of bearing witness. Which is, in the end, all that these journalists were trying to do.”

—DANA BALLOUT, The 95. Dana sifts through a very long list—the list of journalists killed in the Israel-Hamas war, and comes back with five small fragments of the lives of the people on it. Dana is a Lebanese-American, Emmy-nominated documentary producer.