burdenedhistorian

[burdenedhistorian]

orthodox priest cooking in the monastery kitchen (1947)

[burdenedhistorian]

Italian conservator Lorenza D'Alessandro working on the conservation of the tomb of Nefertari, QV66, in the 1980s.

[burdenedhistorian]

“Ooh a box my fav-WTF IS THAT?!?!“ 

(Source)

[burdenedhistorian]

[burdenedhistorian]

Le Petit Journal Apr 8 1917

Apr 8 1917 #OTD Le Petit Journal 

Easter 1917 the bells of the Victory   

Paques 1917 les cloches de la Victoire

[burdenedhistorian]

Yesterday (2019) dir. Danny Boyle

[burdenedhistorian]

Oleg at his horse`s remains, 1899, Viktor Vasnetsov

https://www.wikiart.org/en/viktor-vasnetsov/oleg-at-his-horse-s-remains-1899

[burdenedhistorian]

The night Kanye really tried to save us from Taylor. The night Henny almost saved the world. The night lives changed.

[burdenedhistorian]

[burdenedhistorian]

Dr. Seuss, cruel power, and our terrifying future

If you’ve been online in the last few days, you’ve no doubt been informed that the company that controls the work of Dr. Seuss is putting six of his lesser books out of print and pulling them from shops. Today, it was reported that they are partnering with major online retailers to prevent these platforms from selling even used copies of the books. And this was all in response to a predictably shitty academic article that counted the number of characters in Seuss books and found–gasp–that most of them were white, that the non-white characters who are present are still offensive, and also that there was secret racial coding in works such as Horton Hears a Who, which are racist in spite of not featuring any human characters. 

Now, one might wonder how a children’s illustrator could have represented racial diversity in simple line drawings without including symbols that could, when taken intentionally out of context several decades later, avoid being considered offensive. If you’re asking that question, you don’t know how these things work. Despite of patina of scientism, “scholarly” pieces such as this always start from the assumption of offensiveness. Their authors know any accusations will stick, no matter how absurd, self-contradictory, or even non-existent they may be. This is all a con, and everyone knows it. 

John Dolan had a great observation on an episode of the War Nerd podcast over the summer, back when everyone was tearing down statues. Paraphrasing, he said that people who do stuff like this realize that they’re not actually accomplishing anything. That’s not the intention. The reason you deface monuments is to demonstrate to everyone that you can.

Dr. Seuss is a ripe target for today’s mob because no one seriously believes that his work is harmful. There are literally thousands of children’s books, old and new, that you could plausibly claim are more offensive. They’re doing this because it’s so unintuitive and alienating. The fact that this seems–and is–so unnecessary and absurd makes it a much more profound statement of cultural dominance. Amazon and Ebay must take social justice very seriously if they’re willing to do something so unnecessary!

But, ahh, I’m sure the pedants are itching to point out that ACTUALLY it’s not censorship. No sir. It’s just a corporate trust banning several works of culturally important children’s literature in response to an obscure academic article and then working with retail platforms to ban the private re-sale of the book. That’s totally not censorship, because, umm, the government didn’t do it directly. That’s a super smart point and you should pat yourself on the back for making it. Everyone is very impressed.

That this ban did not come from a formal government dictate does not obscure the fact that it’s part of a broad cultural-political project that’s embedded within the Democratic party. The internet’s army of Democrat scolds were uniform and effusive in their praise of it. Republicans were equally uniform in their denunciation. If you’re a Democrat, this is your brand. In the minds of the average voter, this is what you stand for. And, since you’re unlikely to accomplish anything else beyond this, that’s not an unfair appraisal of you and your beliefs. 

Semantics aside, the precedent here is terrifying. The petty cruelty is astounding. This is the start of a broader and significantly more dangerous phase of wokeness.

If you’re reading this blog, you are no doubt aware that claims of offensiveness are arbitrary. Any person can, conceivably, take offense at any work of art. This isn’t necessarily a mean or selfish reaction–sometimes something rubs you the wrong way. But a foundational tenet of liberalism was, until very recently, the realization that just because you yourself don’t like something, that does not give you the right to completely dismiss it. It especially does not give you the moral clearance to deny others access to it. 

Instead of seeking to universalize personal taste, there used to exist formal and semi-formal mechanisms for adjudicating the artistic merit of potentially offensive pieces, and then establishing a consensus in regards to their worthiness and people’s potential access to them. These systems were imperfect and reflected the prejudices of their times, as all systems of apperception are bound be. But instead of seeking to adjust them, replace them with systems that are more inclusive and humanistic, we’ve decided to junk them entirely in favor of a full and proud embrace of narcissistic standpoint valuation. 

The old systems always took into account the age, context, intention, and critical reception of older works. The new system regards these very criteria as malignant. Now, all you need is for one piece of criticism to gain traction, and that’s it, there’s no pushing back against it–it’s not a consensus but a declaration, and you either agree with it or you’re in favor of erasing identities and making vulnerable people feel unsafe. The criticized works are now evil. The handful of companies that control our access to media now face a heavy monetary and social incentive to get rid of them. 

The censorship isn’t going to stop, and they’re starting to prioritize banning works not according to how “harmful” they may be but by how much the act of banning them will upset and sadden people. I’m sure, by pure coincidence, works that commit the crime of fostering class consciousness will be high up on the list–Steinbeck’s about to finally get his comeuppance. And, of course, the political reaction to this is going to be historic.

Covid vaccines are rolling out and stimulus is not coming. The meager checks on our everyday cruelty–eviction and foreclosure bans, debt relief, elevated unemployment insurance–are all about to get yanked away, replaced with nothing. The jobs aren’t coming back, and many of those that remain will soon turn into gig work. Millions of people will be forced out of their homes. Millions will lose healthcare. And the very best our ruling party has been able to do in response is ban Dr. Seuss and get Aunt Jemima removed from the box of pancake mix. God help us all come 2024.

[burdenedhistorian]

Ivan Tsarevich Riding the Grey Wolf, 1889, Viktor Vasnetsov

Medium: oil,canvas

https://www.wikiart.org/en/viktor-vasnetsov/ivan-tsarevich-riding-the-grey-wolf-1889

[burdenedhistorian]

[burdenedhistorian]

Geronimo Giqueaux [x]

[burdenedhistorian]

Angel’s Egg - illustrations by Yoshitaka Amano / Animage magazine (08/1985) 

[burdenedhistorian]

[burdenedhistorian]

todays beanie is: the end!