EMMYdiocracy

Month

February 2012

Jan 31, 2012884 notes
Jan 31, 20125,778 notes

January 2012

Jan 31, 2012117 notes
Jan 31, 2012275 notes
Today in "I didn't know they were Black!!": Ludwig Van Beethoven

coelasquid:

theafrosistuh:


SOURCE

The true identity of Ludwig van Beethoven, long considered Europe’s greatest classical music composer.  Said directly, Beethoven was a black man. Specifically, his mother was a Moor, that group of Muslim Northern Africans who conquered parts of Europe—making Spain their capital—for some 800 years.

In order to make such a substantial statement, presentation of verifiable evidence is compulsory. Let’s start with what some of Beethoven’s contemporaries and biographers say about his brown complexion.:

” Frederick Hertz, German anthropologist, used these terms to describe him: “Negroid traits, dark skin, flat, thick nose.”

Emil Ludwig, in his book “Beethoven,” says: “His face reveals no trace of the German. He was so dark that people dubbed him Spagnol [dark-skinned].”

Fanny Giannatasio del Rio, in her book “An Unrequited Love: An Episode in the Life of Beethoven,” wrote “His somewhat flat broad nose and rather wide mouth, his small piercing eyes and swarthy [dark] complexion, pockmarked into the bargain, gave him a strong resemblance to a mulatto.”

C. Czerny stated, “His beard—he had not shaved for several days—made the lower part of his already brown face still darker.”

Following are one word descriptions of Beethoven from various writers: Grillparzer, “dark”; Bettina von Armin, “brown”; Schindler, “red and brown”; Rellstab, “brownish”; Gelinek, “short, dark.”

Newsweek, in its Sept. 23, 1991 issue stated, “Afrocentrism ranges over the whole panorama of human history, coloring in the faces: from Australopithecus to the inventors of mathematics to the great Negro composer Beethoven.”

And yet Western “scholars” want you to believe that Beethoven looked like:

Interesting stuff!

Jan 31, 20127,316 notes
Jan 30, 201274,824 notes
Jan 30, 2012485 notes
Jan 30, 2012249 notes
Jan 30, 2012118 notes
Jan 30, 2012307 notes
Jan 30, 2012121 notes
Jan 30, 20121,500 notes
Jan 30, 20129,313 notes
Jan 30, 2012225 notes
Jan 30, 201260 notes
Jan 30, 2012622 notes
Jan 30, 201231 notes
Jan 30, 201222,000 notes
Jan 30, 201217,979 notes

spookyhouse:

soselfimportant:

image

sweet bro is red

hella jeff is blue

in my dreams

the star is you

mak loeb to me plaes that was 2 beautful

Jan 30, 20121,200 notes
Jan 29, 201244 notes
#:D
Jan 29, 20129 notes
Jan 29, 2012109,131 notes
Jan 29, 20121,688 notes
Jan 29, 2012203 notes
Jan 29, 201276 notes
DESTROY ALL BLOGS WITH AUTOPLAY MUSIC
Jan 29, 201295 notes
Jan 29, 2012140 notes
Jan 29, 201287 notes
Jan 29, 2012396 notes
Jan 29, 201291 notes
Jan 29, 201286 notes
Jan 29, 2012156 notes
Jan 28, 2012136 notes
#acab
Jan 28, 201287 notes
Jan 28, 2012127 notes
Play
Jan 28, 20129 notes
Play
Jan 28, 2012
Play
Jan 28, 2012
Play
Jan 28, 2012
Jan 27, 2012189 notes
theres new bill. its called the Get Our America To Som- listen it's goatse ok. its a goatse link. fuck you → goatse.info
Jan 26, 201228 notes
Jan 26, 201216 notes
Jan 26, 2012557 notes
Jan 26, 201210,829 notes
Jan 26, 20121,584 notes
Jan 26, 20121,302 notes
Jan 26, 201214 notes
Jan 26, 201293 notes
New Hampshire GOP Proposes Bill That Will Prevent Police from Protecting Domestic Abuse Victims → thinkprogress.org

thepoliticalfreakshow:

Since the 1970s, New Hampshire police have operated under a progressive policy for handling domestic violence cases that has saved countless lives. Under current law the presumption is that an arrest will be made when police observe evidence of abuse. They have a large degree of discretion and don’t need to witness the assault firsthand or obtain a legal warrant before they can separate the alleged attacker from his victim.

All that will change if Republicans get their way. The state’s GOP legislators are pushing two bills that will reverse a half century of progress, the Concord Monitor reports:

Domestic violence is no longer taken lightly legally or by society. That’s the way it should be, but two bills under consideration by this most unusual of legislatures, would undo that progress and put lives in danger. Both deserve a speedy defeat.

House Bill 1581 would turn the clock back 40 years to an age when a police officer could not make an arrest in a domestic violence case without first getting a warrant unless he or she actually witnessed the crime. That’s an exceedingly dangerous change. Consider the following scenario, one outlined for lawmakers by retired Henniker police chief Tim Russell:

An officer is called to a home where she sees clear evidence that an assault has occurred. The furniture is overturned, the children are sobbing, and the face of the woman of the house is bruised and bleeding. It’s obvious who the assailant was, but the officer arrived after the assault occurred. It’s a small department, and no one else on the force is available to keep the peace until the officer finds a judge or justice of the peace to issue a warrant. The officer leaves, and the abuser renews his attack with even more ferocity, punishing his victim for having called for help. […]

It’s impossible to say how many lives the policy, in place since the 1970s, has saved or how many injuries it’s prevented. If they adopt House Bill 1581, lawmakers might find out, but the price paid could be extraordinarily high.

The other bill Republicans have proposed, HB 1608, limits judges’ ability to order the arrest of someone who has violated a domestic violence restraining order by contacting or abusing the person named in the order. It would also prevent judges from ordering defendants to surrender their weapons or block them from buying guns.

Police say the bill stops them from intervening to protect victims. For instance, they would be stripped of their power to arrest someone who is threatening to use violence against a victim or child. It’s unclear why New Hampshire Republicans have set their sights on repealing protections for abuse victims when promised to focus on economic priorities.

Jan 26, 2012436 notes
Next page →
2012 2013
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2011 2012 2013
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2010 2011 2012
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2010 2011
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December