#Could I just ignore historical accuracy? Yes but I like learning about it.

[radicalcircuit]

Just thinking about the fact Shadow grew up with humans.

Originally this was about music but headphones didn't become commonly used until the the 80s after when the walkman came out in the late 70s.

[glorfys-glorioushair]

As an American, I can tell you that the French Revolution is not something that is mandatory for a basic school education here. It's only mentioned in passing when we are finishing up the American Revolution section.

Also the history of Saint-Domingue was never taught, at least to my knowledge. The sad thing is that the only colonization really talked about in the American classroom is focused on the US soil. I DESPISE this. Tells a lot about how so many Americans are just unaware of the effect imperialism has on them.

While yes I did learn about the French Revolution in secondary school, it was taught as a college level class, meaning that not many students took it because it was "too much work". There are so many more details and info about the French Revolution than just the bread. It lasted for like 10 years! Definitely not only a bread issue.

History needs to be taught with more awareness to other events happening around the same time, and it just doesn't happen unless you have an excellent history teacher. I was very fortunate or at least could tell when a teacher didn't know much about the topic themselves.

With the case of NFCV here, it's obvious that Deats and co picked and chose what they wanted and disregarded accuracy by trusting on the ignorance of Americans. Let's use this "niche" history of a French colony to make us look like we're being respectful and good at historical fiction whilst drawing your attention away from the disrespect for the French Revolution. We have nothing to worry about because other Americans are stupid!

Like...did you forget other countries watch this stuff? And did you forget that some Americans happen to be self-aware of how imperialism has tried to shape their thinking?

I am so disgusted x(

Sam Deats: I like the French Revolution background because it means I have to brush up on my history skills!

Nocturne: Features bread being an easily affordable food and a French politician who used to oppose slavery irl being made into a cartoonishly evil racist vampire slave master

He brushed up on his history knowledge the way a student crams half a book the day before the exam

(in all seriousness, the fact that they seem to be more knowledgeable on the history of Saint-Domingue than what was happening in Europe might be a hint on how the Revolution is taught in the US. I honestly don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's just one small chapter shoehorned in the books because during the same era the US were going through important historical events so they'd obviously focus on that. After all, there has to be a reason Richter and Julia were introduced as living in Boston, right? I'm sure the American indipendence will come up eventually too)

[chemicalpink]

Hey, I hope you are doing good this was a thing that was wondering me so there are lot of bts future spouse /soulmate/twinflame videos being made on youtube and honestly everyone is being psychic like it has become a shitshow and what was previously just for curiosity fun and entertainment are becoming extremely emotionally invested in the topic especially for maknae line soulmate it would be interesting if the can do a tarot reading or your spiritual experience why is the future spouse saga turning ugly and does universe what us to know something through it !? Because it's becoming pretty crazy right now

Okay so I believe that yes, the spiritual part has a lot to do behind this occurrence, but I also think its roots lay on psicosocial matters and honestly I could go on for days about this but I’ll try to restrict it to a few points that you’ve mentioned

Why all of a sudden everyone seems to be tarot readers/astrologers/psychic?

The capitalism behind celebrities and how does that play a part in what is going on?

Are these people accurate at all?

How does energy shifting play a part in this?

Is the soulmate journey even something a third person would be able to note?

But first a Disclaimer: this opinion/rant is based on my experience with spirituality, I am obviously a mere mortal, so I do not hold the absolute truth. Spirituality is a constant learning process and it is open to discussion and interpretation of each person. I am also now a proud sociologist graduate that specialises in a lot of the stuff that has to do with what anon is asking, I’m a social behaviouralist applied to the entertainment industry as well but I’ll also provide my resources in the end.

A/N: Some of you might not yet be ready to read all of this, if I see ANY of you trying to start beef with me, even after the disclaimer, I'm gonna block you. If you want to talk more about it or want to discuss it further, DO SO OFF ANON. ISTG you’ve been warned, I’ve been working on this for the longest time, it even has resources to back all of it up! I’m so glad anon asked, I’m done being diplomatic on this topic (I know people that usually ask stuff are so respectful and i love you guys for it, this note is for those people that regularly jump on my asks to stir things up)

You guys are in for a whole academic article if you decide to read this

SO FUN AND EXCITINGGGG Let us start with behavioural economics as our base to understand the whole phenomenon, it's such a broad and kinda complex concept (especially since I’m trying to extrapolate it to this particular scenario) so let me do my best. It has a lot to do with trend following, although at least to me, it's unclear how exactly this content came to be (soulmate readings, channeling messages, etc) I am guessing it had something to do with an intersectionality between the general spirituality boom that we’ve met with during the pandemic and some person that just as any other marketable opportunity, saw a bridge between fandom life and this spiritual life (both prominent trends in the last two years or so) and honestly, it worked perfectly, whatever their initial intentions were, they threw out a new “product” and it kind of sold itself, two different trends coming together… turned into a behavioural game theory where if you played the part that allows your content to be consumed, you’ll get rewarded for it. In more simple words, tarot meets fandoms (alternatively, tarot meets BTS) is great as it is! but the fan behaviour (which we’ll talk about in a bit) positions the most private parts of the celebrities’ lives to be much more interesting than things that we are already able to see (personal experience, love readings do so much better than idk career readings and it all comes down to behavioural trends of perceiving ‘love’ as something very intimate)

Now, this is where we’ll begin to talk about capitalism as a whole, even in non-monetary systems like social media, where it takes more of a rewarding system via likes, views, reblogs, etc. The whole principle of us living in such a system is being aspirational, we see others profiting off of something, we might want to reach out and do the same so we can profit ourselves, which honestly, I think is what happened with the whole BTS soulmate readings boom, they get a lot of attention, and as a basic market law, as demand goes up and a few people that initially did these readings are no longer capable to satisfy the need of the people wanting to know all the tea, there are market opportunities for other people to do the same thing and increase the offer, although since this whole theory is behavioural, it is very context-dependant, which ends up not following the principle of the consumers being rational about how much and what content they consume, they just sort of consume all of it, regardless of whether the content creator is qualified to offer such content or not, which ultimately only adds onto a never ending cycle of more people claiming they are tarot readers/astrologers/psychics and fear nothing because this is the internet, you don't really have to enter any qualifications to be able to create content, whether someone is reliable in internet terms is basically all about how many likes they’ve got (which is why I always tell you guys to please consume content responsible).

When it comes to accuracy- I guess that’s the hardest part of all, we can’t just have pointers that would automatically tells us if someone’s craft is valid or not, since everyone’s craft is different all craft is valid to a certain extent (you can easily find scammers of course but that’s another story) what we can have are personal standards and deciding what content to consume or whose content to consume, but that’s entirely a personal decision and since so many people are invested in it- it seems really hard that these “market tendencies” might change any time soon. On that same note of accuracy, I really feel the need to talk about a major occurrence I’ve come across in this whole soulmate scene, minors. Now, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with being a minor and approaching spirituality (I was very much a minor when I started) but there’s a huge difference between just playing around and deciding to create content for the whole world to have access to. Of course I’m aware not all tarot readers in the BTS fandom are minors, and ARMY is very diverse and even if they were only minors it would be wrong to invalidate them, but we can’t ignore the statistics of it when touching this particular topic, according to 2020 data, 50,31% of ARMY are below 18 years old, and 42,59% are between 18-29 but why is this important? because the exact historical and economic moment we are living in mainly impacts these two age groups, thus making all 92,90% of ARMY a potential target to consuming or falling in a behavioural game theory of creating this content without them necessarily being qualified for it. But hey, why do you keep talking about the importance of being qualified? Glad you asked, creating spiritual content all comes down to one amazing term: accountability.

And this will explore two main phases of it, one applicable for that 50,31% that could potentially be drawn to create spiritual content and other for the 42,59% that could potentially be dragged to creating that content without much spiritual knowledge. For the first one, it has a lot to do with cognitive aspects, young people tend to do stuff without much further thought about how their actions impact other people, which, as they should, they are kids, they shouldn’t have to worry too much about emotional responsibility as us adults do, furthermore, they are in life stages where they can’t really comprehend many abstract concepts that we later learn in life, and spirituality is one of those concepts, so they tend to just have fun with it with no regards on how their content might impact other minors (this is where the whole feeding a false scenario that is potentially delusional in exchange of more views, likes comes into play) on a more spiritual level, they also aren’t able to comprehend the boundaries of the celebrities they’re reading for, us readers have to always be careful about the information we give out since it is not ours to give. As for the second group, some of this is still applicable since theorists consider a full cognitive maturity until 23 years of age, but since it is very intersectional itself, i would found it more to a spiritual responsibility, since they are young adults, and if they haven’t been spiritually guided as kids, they’re most probably eager to learn and just awakening yet to some of them the drive to this spirituality is content creation instead of inner work, so they get their hands on a tarot deck, might kind of read a few things, call it a day and start reading for BTS (note: not all of them, I’m aware)

As for the maknae line being the most sought out people with this content, I guess it kinda makes sense now that I’ve said all of the information above, maknae line is closest to the age group of 92,90% of ARMY, so they instantly become more marketable to this content creation and the whole Game Theory that we are seeing. With all that being said, and just adding a note coming from my own spiritual experience, soulmates in any form are a difficult topic for a third person to prode, which is why I, personally, tend to not touch that topic, love is one hell of a concept, especially since we all have different conceptions of love and interpersonal relationships. I do know for a fact that there’s only so far we can go in terms of fated connections, like with astrology, but even then, we would have to know their birth times exactly (so we can check for any indicator or a soulmate connection), and/or compare BTS with the rest of the world’s population in order to accurately tell if someone has a soulmate synastry/overlay/composite with them. Also, soulmate journeys are intimate and we are all just fans, what right do we even have to look for things that do not and will never belong to us?

This is why I’m always telling you guys to PLEASE consume content responsibly! Really! Us content consumers also have our part to play that can help us get more accurate, more drama-free content

REFERENCES (what? you thought I was joking? they’re in alphabetical order)

ARMYCENSUS 2020

Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Projection bias in predicting future utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1209-1248.

March, J. G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 587-608.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633-644.

Murphy, S. T., & Zajonc, R. B. (1993). Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 723-729.

Samson, A., & Voyer, B. (2014). Emergency purchasing situations: Implications for consumer decision-making. Journal of Economic Psychology, 44, 21-33.

Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York: Ecco.

Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 207-222.

Thaler, R. H. (2015). Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics. Allen Lane.

Thaler, R. H. (2008). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 27, 15-25.

Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2009). The habitual consumer. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 579-592.

[sunnysaylorboy]

my opinion on/a surprisingly passionate defense of Mulan (2020) (SPOILERS)

I’ve seen a lot of ppl ragging on the new Mulan for so many reasons, so I will go over why these (mostly) are stupid reasons and why I love the new movie.

1. Liu Yifei supporting the Hong Kong police. Now this is not a stupid reason, this is valid. I am an East Asian studies major, and as much as I love Disney, when I first heard the news I knew I could not watch Mulan (2020) in good conscience. It went against everything I have learned in my studies, and everything I believe. However, now I am almost positive Liu Yifei was forced to make those comments- I've seen several sources saying so recently. You can look for these sources on your own, because this isn’t the whole point of my post, but I think it's true. A movie about a woman defying her government and social expectations of the time? Hong Kong citizens could absolutely use her as a symbol for protesting against China. It makes sense that the government would take preventative measures before this could happen. But anyways, I was not planning on watching Mulan (2020) until I found out that what she said was most likely fake/forced.

2. The removal of Mushu. Yes, I too miss Mushu but I completely understand why they did that. A lot of ppl make these sort of complaints about the live action remakes not using humor in the same way as the original, but that’s bc it doesn’t translate well. Humor in animated movies is exaggerated or silly, and it works in that medium but if you do the exact same in a live action film, it will come off as too slapstick. Think Will Ferrell in Elf (still a good movie). Mushu’s whole character is based off of this humor that appeals more to kids, and it would have really made the dialogue with him super cringey. and I know if they made him a more serious supportive character people would've complained about that too, so I understand why they did it.

3. The removal of Li Shang. I miss our bisexual boy too, but I actually think they did a really great job with the new guy Honghui. The directors removed Li Shang because he is in a sense, Mulan’s boss, and they felt that it was too much like the #MeToo movement, which I applaud. At first I was upset that supposedly this new character would be a jerk to Mulan until he found out she was a girl, but that's not what happened in the film fortunately. Honghui and Mulan start off on the wrong foot but they grow as comrades and sort-of friends, and Honghui is the first to stick by Mulan’s side when she reveals who she is. Even if there aren’t as many signals of him being bi, I think they progressed their relationship nicely. (I was sorta hoping for a kiss at the end though).

4. Mulan’s “chi.” Apparently people do not like that Mulan already has a sort of warrior streak inside of her already, as opposed to the 1998 version where she struggles to get used to the army. I think this is an overgeneralization. Mulan does struggle to become a soldier, as we can see in the training montage. Similar to the pole and the arrow at the top, she cannot reach the top of the mountain carrying the buckets with her arms outstretched like everyone else at first- then when she manages to do it, she knows she has proven herself. Plus, I like that they gave her more character. We don’t see any of Mulan’s childhood years in the original, so it is a little hard to understand why she is such an outcast. She only had one incident with the matchmaker and suddenly she is questioning her identity. But the 2020 version establishes that Mulan has been different from the start and everyone has known it since then. It makes it more believable that she brings dishonor on her family so easily. And just because she has strong chi doesn’t necessarily mean she is already a warrior. She is told to hide her chi as a child, and she does not tap into it easily- her commanding officers can sense something is holding her back. She is special, yes, but she isn’t “the chosen one.” She still works hard and she still relies a lot on her strategy instead of brute force just like in the animated version.

5. Lack of musical numbers. I do miss the musical numbers. But they did well with incorporating the musical themes from the original into the movie. The little “Honor to Us All” theme playing while she gets ready for the matchmaker? Perfect. The bit of “Reflection” playing when she reaches the top of mountain? Beautiful. And “Reflection” playing at the end when she is recognized as a hero? I was bawling. Also, this isn’t the first remake that Disney hasn’t made as a musical- the 2015 Cinderella did not include “A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes,” (except in the credits like Mulan did), or “Bibbidi-Bobbido-Boo,” or “So This is Love.” I know that Cinderella is an older movie and may not be as beloved to this generation as Mulan, but those song are still incredibly iconic to the Disney brand and I didn't see anyone complaining about those songs being removed. Idk, I don’t think it’s a big enough deal to be upset over it, especially because they included instrumentals of the songs for the live-action version.

6. The addition of the witch. I can’t believe people are complaining about the personification of the hawk from the first movie- seriously, watch the remake and you’ll see how great Xian Liang’s character is. I love the parallels drawn between her and Mulan. Despite fighting for opposite sides, she sees herself in Mulan, and Mulan sees how she might end up if she had chosen the route of evil. I think they did it wonderfully and I’m definitely not gay for Gong Li...

7. The cost. This one, I understand. $30 is a lot to pay for a movie, but I get it because they’re losing money from not going to theaters for a few months. I paid the $30 because I felt like I had waited long enough to see it, I was foaming at the mouth the night of its release, and I had $30 I was willing to spend on it. Ofc Disney is a multi-million dollar company, so I don’t begrudge anyone pirating it bc screw capitalism.

I just had to get this off my chest because so many criticisms of this film seem so unjustified, weak, or deliberately negative. I swear, not just with Mulan, I see so many people who hate the live-action remakes- it’s like they’re trying to find things to hate about them, and I'm frankly getting sick of it. Like damn bitch why you gotta be so negative about everything?? The acting is great, the music is phenomenal and timeless, the costumes are so extravagant, the action sequences make you hold your breath in anticipation... y'all will find anything to whine about and I'm TIRED. And it seems like some of y'all are purposefully ignoring WHY they made these changes. These changes were made to adhere to the Legend of Mulan more closely, to make up for some of the racial insensitivity/cultural inaccuracies in the original, and to appeal to their Asian audience. the 1998 version is a VERY Americanized way to tell they story- so stop complaining, you got “your version” that appeals to you.

Some things I loved were

1. Mulan’s sister. It’s not often we see Disney princesses with siblings. Even though she didn’t have much screen time, I loved Xiu and the relationship she had with Mulan.

2. The phoenix symbolism. In Mulan (1998), there is heavy dragon symbolism as Mulan is preparing to run away to the army. This insinuates that Mulan is the dragon, the protector of the family, and that is why the Great Stone Dragon doesn’t awaken later. In this version, she is instead guarded and represented by a phoenix. In Chinese mythology (correct me if I'm wrong), the phoenix stands for yin and yang, harmony and is often the female counterpart to the dragon. The wings specifically represent duty, which is why the wings of the phoenix spread behind Mulan when she saves the emperor singlehandedly. Though I don’t know if they intended this, in Greek mythology the phoenix is a symbol of death and rebirth. Mulan is reborn again as Hua Jun, but ultimately in this version she is not discovered as a girl, she chooses to fight as one. The moment she does, “Hua Jun died, and Mulan was born again,” as she sees the phoenix once more. Mulan is the phoenix, and she brings harmony after defeating the Rourans. It’s beautiful.

3. The avalanche scene. A lot of the battle scene was different, but I loved that they kept in the avalanche from the original. Mulan’s planning in this one shows how big her brain is, and how well her strategy works.

4. Xian Liang and Honghui. As I already mentioned, I really loved how they portrayed these characters.

5. The fight scenes. God they really got the perfect actress to play Mulan. Liu Yifei leaning back to avoid an arrow from a Rouran? Impeccable. Mulan’s display of her techniques when she and Honghui get into it when they’re supposed to be practicing? So cool. 

All in all, I loved this movie just like I love all of the other Disney princess live-action remakes. Disney obviously spent a lot of money on the action sequences, the costumes, the backgrounds, the historical accuracies, the casting, the storyline, everything is amazing. I will definitely be watching again.

[mrs-nate-humphrey]

(submission) Hi! So this started out as an ask, but as always, it got way too unwieldy for the ask box. And I’ll flat out state that while I am studying public policy and urban planning, I am by no means an expert on gentrification or on Brooklyn specifically - both are still topics I’m actively learning about. That said, I think there’s a couple of reasons people make a “thing” out of the Humphreys’ loft. For starters, it’s an incredibly easy way to undercut Dan and Jenny’s experiences amongst their peers by pointing out that they’re not really poor, so why are they complaining so much?? This, of course, ignores the facts that 1. they never claim to actually be poor, 2. the show never suggests that they really are - only otherwise classist characters like Blair do - and, 3. just because they were being bullied for a bullshit reason, it… doesn’t actually make the bullying any less bad? In fact, most bullying is over trivial nonsense - pointing that out doesn’t make it any less harmful to the bullied! Nonetheless, for people who dislike the Humphreys and are tired of their “whining”, it’s an easy rhetorical device to bludgeon them with. Besides that though, it’s largely a projection of today’s Brooklyn onto the 2007 Brooklyn the show is set in, and more importantly, the 1990s Brooklyn Rufus started raising his family in. It’s true that if you tried to purchase or even rent a space like the one Dan and Jenny grew up in now, you would need to basically be a millionaire, full stop. But acting as though a middle class family would NEVER have been able to live in a property like that isn’t just an overgeneralization - it’s simply ahistorical. Now, to be clear, Brooklyn as a whole started gentrifying all the way back in the 1960s, and has done so in periodic waves. Williamsburg in particular slowly began gentrifying starting in the 1970s - although this process didn’t reach a critical mass until the late 1990s, with a specific turning point coming in 2005. Looking to take advantage of the influx of young professionals and Manhattanites moving to the area and increasingly hungry for waterfront property, the New York City Council introduced a mass rezoning effort that transformed a great number of the neighborhoods’ then numerous manufacturing plants and warehouses into expensive, high-end residential buildings and condominiums. This rezoning process ended up pushing out many of the same working class residents that had historically been the lifeblood of the community - many of them unfortunately and unsurprisingly POC (specifically, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, and Hasidic Jews). This wave of mass gentrification is what MADE Williamsburg the poster child for gentrification in NYC - up until this point you still had a fairly vibrant working class community living there (even amongst all of the incoming artists and hipsters, yes). Assuming Rufus bought the loft in the early 90s around the time Dan was a baby - back when he still had a semi-relevant music career - it would have been right on the cusp of an earlier rezoning effort that came in the late 90s - one that saw the median price of a home in Williamsburg skyrocket by an average of 60%. Arguably, the Humphrey family were THEMSELVES gentrifiers (albeit unintentionally), given that they pretty damn well fit the profile of “young artists looking for affordable housing that end up attracting real estate investors, that then make the area unaffordable”. Admittedly, the history of gentrification in Brooklyn isn’t exactly common knowledge, and I’ve significantly oversimplified it here - but a lot of the “how could the Humphreys live in Williamsburg when Williamsburg is so expensive???” discourse is coming from people who either have never lived in the city and know it only from television, or have lived in New York but are young enough that they don’t remember Williamsburg ever NOT being the textbook example of gentrification. It’s interesting to me how much I’ve noticed this particular line of argument increase over time - I think a lot of it is coming from younger viewers who

simply don’t realize how recent this gentrification still is, historically speaking. Finally, there’s the much fairer point that is made, and that is that the interior of the Humphreys’ loft looks MASSIVE compared to what it would be like in reality, a point which I’ll happily concede. There’s no doubt that the TV set of the loft is depicted as being incredibly nice and spacious - just look at those high ceilings! But there is also a very simple, practical reasoning behind this that does not involve the Humphreys lying about their economic status - it is very hard to film with a full camera rig in cramped spaces, so the set designers made the loft bigger than it actually would be in real life. That is why almost all TV apartments look unrealistically large - it’s not that writers don’t understand the areas and lifestyles they’re writing about, it’s that production crews often sacrifice accuracy to make their jobs a little easier. Anyways, hoped this helped a bit! For reference (and in case you’re interested in the subject and would like more information), a lot of my dates and data concerning gentrification in Williamsburg came from this very informative profile that Macaulay Honors College did on the subject - they’re actually in the process of studying a bunch of different neighborhoods in NYC and charting the specific history of how they became gentrified. It’s really a very interesting (albeit depressing) lens through which to study New York history, in my opinion.

[springfieldblues]

my long ass review for S32E03 Now Museum, Now You Don’t

warning: LONG because i rambled about history more than i thought i would

id been looking forward to this one because i like art history, especially after seeing how they tried their best to stick to historical accuracy in the previous episode I, Carumbus. this time however….they didnt try that hard. i dont know why i thought theyd go through that sort of trouble again LMAO

but its okay, i dont really expect the simpsons to be the paragon of historical accuracy or anything. especially in anthology episodes told through a particular character's lens (in this case, lisa, whos already feverish so whatever)

first i just wanna say that this is, i guess, less of a review and more of an accidental list of history fun facts. so im just gonna get my general thoughts out of the way first.

the episode was fun! to me at least haha. i mean it got me to think and do a lot of research on my own so that must count for something. besides a couple of really weird ones, the jokes were good. anthology episodes tend to be….not that good but i thought this one was one of the better ones so far. idk.

anyway on to lisanardo da vinky its the renaissance! jesus christ the italian accents in the beginning of this segment were annoying as hell but i also feel like that was the joke lmao. ill be real i kind of tuned out for a second there when grampa started rambling so idk what he said.

i told myself i wouldnt get nitpicky with historical accuracy if the jokes were funny (final edit: so that was a lie) but this meh bit with the pizza guys and mascots was really not worth ignoring the fact that its impossible for italy to have any tomato-based food in the 15th century (tomatoes were brought to europe from the americas in the 16th century, and pizza as we know it today—flatbread, cheese, tomato—originated in the late 18th century)

oh this next part was kind of legit tho. lisanardo, like the real leonardo, became andrea del verrochio's apprentice at his workshop. i loved this next bit:

"Whoever paints the sweetest cherub will have the honor of having MY name signed on their work. That's what great artists do!"

SO YEAH as it turns out, lisanardo painted the sweetest cherubs. the painting here is called The Baptism of Christ, and the real leonardo assisted verrochio in finishing it. specifically, he painted the cherubs in the corner.

this causes verrochio to quit and go someplace with less talented people: a music school (yes, verrochio did quit painting after getting owned by young leo and his mad angel painting skills. he never did anything with music tho, he was more of a sculptor)

alongside lisanardo, in mr largo-verrochio's workshop we have barticelli (botticelli bart), dolphatello (donatello dolph), ralphael (raphael...ralph) and mediocrito (no one that i know of. sorry milhouse) (and kearney i guess but they dont refer to him by name). botticelli and donatello are said to have also been apprentices at verrochio's workshop, but raphael came a couple of decades later so he couldnt have been there. and donatello was too old so that claim is a bit questionable. but anyway

it IS true that leonardo's peers envied him, to the point where he was anonymously and purposefully accused of being gay (a major crime punishable by death in 15th century florence) while he was still working at verrochio's workshop

we are then treated by what im pretty sure is the fourth time the show has used 'at seventeen' by janis ian, this time sung by a dejected lisanardo (man they really do keep making yeardley sing these days huh) who only wishes to be appreciated and not envied.

"I'll show them all! I'll show them all in a secret diary that no one will decipher for 400 years!"

some of lisanardo's future inventions. who wouldve known

so after barticelli, for some reason (revenge??? or something?? what was his plan here idgi) steals lisanardo's diaries full of blueprints of her inventions and takes them to mr burns who i have to assume is pope alexander VI here, they decide to use her inventions for war.

"With these, we can kill the most evil people in the world!! ....Slightly different Christians."

leo actually did this of his own accord. im surprised this is what they decided to do with lisanardo instead of talking about leo's love of nature and vegetarianism (not a single mention of that in this episode? come on...) then again, trying to do good only to end up indirectly making things worse is a very standard lisa storyline. i guess they didnt want to miss the chance to have evil pope burns (very fitting, especially for that era since they were all about money and controlling the people)

so lisanardo decides to leave for france, unlike the real leonardo who was more or less persuaded by his ultimate fanboy king francis I to move to france.

"Lisanardo, I have many questions. Why are you hitting yourself? A nerd says 'what'? And how is it possible that I am rubber and you are glue? Et cetera, et cetera."

that line may seem a little random, like hes just nelson saying nelson things (and i mean, obviously he is) but the real francis also "had an unquenchable thirst for learning, and Leonardo was the world’s best source of experimental knowledge. He could teach the king about almost any subject there was to know, from how the eye works to why the moon shines." so yeah, he did have many questions and lisanardo, finally being appreciated for her intellect, was happy to answer them all. its very interesting how lisa assigned this role to nelson in her retelling of da vinci’s life :^)

and so she lived the rest of her days in france, nat king cole's 'mona lisa' plays because duh, and they make a da vinci code reference because duh. and the segment ends. and not a single time did they show the actual mona lisa painting. the fuck?

(ngl i was fully expecting bart to say 'leonardo da vinky' for a second here)

so this next segment is about french impressionist painters, most likely the batignolles group, a name adopted by the early representatives of impressionism. its much more vague than the lisanardo segment since no one here is referred to by name (except moe, more on him in a sec) but i dont feel like it really matters in this case. bart is prrrrooobably claude monet but its hard to say, this segment is kind of a mish-mash of a lot of things. also i gotta say i really liked how lisa introduced the story to bart with an 'if you hate the formal study of art' and not 'if you hate art' because thats exactly my headcanon. i LOVE the concept of artist bart and whenever its referenced it just makes perfect sense to me.

anyway the segment opens in 1863 at the école des beaux-arts (back then it was actually known as the académie des beaux-arts), preserver of traditional french art styles. skinner reviews his students’ paintings one by one. praises the plain, unimaginative paintings depicting your typical european countryside landscapes. very run-of-the-mill (haha get it...cuz theres….a windmill) (although the real académie didnt approve of such basic stuff, they wanted artists to draw epic historical and mythological scenes) then he gets to barts painting and he gives him an F- because the painting made him think.

(the paintings in this scene arent real famous paintings as far as i know but they are inspired by real paintings enough to get the point across)

in comes barney dressed as bacchus as a model for the students to sketch, which i just loved:

barney: “You prefer robe open or robe off?” skinner: “Just cover your privates with this walnut shell.” barney: “Whoa!!! So roomy!”

skinner gasps in horror at bart’s sketch, which “looks nothing like him” and bart explains that “it shouldn’t; we’re making the art that we feel because we can’t compete with a camera.” damn, you go bart. take that, realism. draw what you feel!!

(also no, you didnt need to hold still for 17 hours for a daguerreotype. 30 min tops.)

nelson haw-haw of the week: FOIE-gras!

so here they are at the moulin rouge (“enjoy it before baz luhrmann ruins it” hey shut up. i love that movie), which wouldnt be built for another 26 years, but it is the most widely known gathering place for bohemians in the public consciousness so i can understand why they went with the moulin. nelson delivers this anachronistic line:

“This époque keeps getting beller and beller!”

which alludes to la belle époque, the golden age of france usually dated from 1880 to 1914. made me snort so ill let that slide

and heres moe! as henri de toulouse-lautrec, who was actually born a year after the year this segment is set in. yo moe szyslak he was just 1

toulouse-moetrec introduces himself as the chronicler of the demimonde (not an actual job). an iconic figure associated with the moulin rouge (largely due to his affinity for alcohol and prostitutes), toulouse-lautrec was also a painter, having illustrated a series of posters for the moulin himself. he simply had to be in this segment, anachronisms be damned, just because they decided to include the moulin. cant have one without the other.

and yes he did have a walking cane where he kept his liquor.

i love how everyone drinks absinthe in this place. theyre bohemians what else would they drink

toulouse-moetrec points out that barts paintings are the greatest thing hes ever seen (and hes seen like five things!) and that hes a genius. milhouse realizes that they should stop doing what the teacher says and use their own minds to instead...start doing what bart says lmao. to the easels!

next we have skinner hyping up chalmers about the art his students made for the salon de paris, an art exhibition that the emperor of france will attend. he assures him that none of these paintings will encourage debate, provoke thought or be out of place at a dentist’s office. when they unveil the art, theyre both SHOCKED at how scandalous the paintings actually are.

this reaction was kind of accurate. impressionism was severely rejected at the salon de paris, due to paintings not looking finished enough to them, they thought they were ugly and vulgar for depicting nudity in a contemporary setting (historical and mythological nudity was fine). these impressionist paintings were sent to the salon de refusés, which is. yeah. the place where they sent the rejects. the salon de refusés does not make an appearance but this scene makes a reference to it when the artists get expelled from the royal salon. also:

“What about our student loans?” “Oh they’ll be refunded. We are not barbarians, I mean, come on.”

(god if only)

so the painters are down because they want the emperor to actually see their paintings. toulouse-moetrec pipes in once again with an idea.

“There is one thing the emperor loves more than anything.” “France?” “No, he hates France.”

apparently the emperor really loves cheese, which makes sense since its napoleon III (who loved cheese) and homer (who loves cheese.) so the painters roll into the salon inside a giant wheel of cheese (obviously.) as lenny said, “Eh, you know French cheese. Very runny.” napoleon III chases after the wheel into a room, where the wheel falls apart after getting chomped on by the emperor. now that they got his attention, the painters proudly show the emperor their impressionist art, which he couldnt be more indifferent about because he just wants to eat his cheese dammit, and he awards them with the royal medallion just to kind of get them out of his way. skinner immediately starts kissing ass (as he does) until marge’s like ‘hey wait a minute. you expelled these students from the royal salon’ and an executioner immediately starts ominously measuring skinners neck.

“Uh, sir...is your tongue sticking out because you’re dead or because you’re mad at me?”

and thats the end of that lmao (gore in this episode, gore in the last episode, and next week we’re getting gore too cuz its THOH, what the hell is goin on)

we get a short intermission with maggie, who wants a story for her too! lisa tells her that renaissance artists loved to put babies in their paintings, especially baby angels.

here she is showing her The Triumph Of Galatea by raphael:

King David Playing The Harp by peter paul reubens:

and a very simplified version of pretty much any depiction of hell by hyeronimus bosch lmao:

not much else to say about this one, really. but i really liked that sky!

the last segment is about frida kahlo and diego rivera. or as bart puts it ‘the one about a fat guy whos wife is too good for him.’ i was REALLY looking forward to this one because i love frida and i thought itd be a cool opportunity for animators to go bonkers and do really cool shit with her art as inspiration…..but the segment is not about frida, its about diego and his selling out to capitalism. and its also yet another story with homer and marge drama. no funky cool animation here. sigh i guess i’ll take it

the story begins in 1929 at la casa azul, frida’s home (now museum dedicated to her life and work.) frida and diego are getting married. this courtyard definitely did not look this way yet back in 1929. also theres something very cringy yet funny about lovejoy saying spanish words the way he does, i honestly cant decide how i feel about that one

the writers know theyre being cringy with their gringoness so they go along with it.

moe: “Spanish for ‘best wishes’!” mel: “Spanish for ‘congratulations’!” bumblebee man: “Spanish for ‘muy bueno’!”

OH YEAH BUMBLEBEE MAN this is his new voice actor, eric lopez! hes not mexican but its still great to finally have a latino actor voicing a latino character and hes very excited to be part of the show so i hope to hear more of him!! im rooting for him

el barto/zorro makes an appearance which i am very confused about. he has jack shit to do with frida and diego and mexico in the 20s-30s. el zorro was set in the spanish california of the early 19th century. their use of the original theme song makes me think they just wanted to flex their disney privileges tbh

lets not talk about that that whole scene was bad

anyway diego announces he and frida are going to new york, without even asking her first. frida is obviously pissed.

“Don’t worry, as a woman, you’ll be treated with much more respect in America.”

so in new york, diego is having a bit of a business meeting with mr burns as one of the members of the rockefellers, who is commissioning him to draw a mural for the rockefeller center. its kinda funny how he refers to him and frida as socialists even though they were very much communists lmao its okay you can say it. ok so far, but then frida says ‘yes, we hate the capitalists! right now, a young socialist is being born who will take them down! mr. bernie sanders. i hope hes quick about it’ and that was a simple enough joke and couldve been left at that but then its immediately followed by this weird as fuck family guy-esque cutaway gag to bernie as a baby:

“Getting a cootie shot should not cost your lunch money. And if you don’t listen to me, listen to the Bernie Babies! What? Everybody’s got goons.” *larger babies start beating up this other baby* “I disavow that, and welcome it.”

this confused me so much that i had to ask one of my american friends to help me understand, but even she was like ‘uhhh yeah thats a weird joke,’ especially now that hes been out of the race for months (then again these episodes take almost a year to produce. i guess they couldnt be bothered to replace it with something more relevant.) whatever that was weird and confusing and unfunny moving on

frida is pretty irked that diego is going through with this deal. after all, it goes against everything they believe in. im not sure how the real frida felt about diego doing the mural, but she did feel a bit of rage during her visit to the united states, especially the obvious disparity between rich and poor. she hated having to interact with capitalists and found americans very boring. in this segment, frida seems to be acting more like the american communist party, which diego got kicked out of for accepting commissions from wealthy patrons. in any case, frida is pretty upset about this whole thing.

and finally we get the first and only kind of surreal frida moment. kinda. maybe. its more cartoonish than anything but im desperate ok

interesting how they felt like they had to add a “don’t smoke” in big letters after showing patty and selma flying away on their giant cigarettes. i wonder if this is something theyre making them do now? i remember hearing something about them toning down patty and selma’s smoking

diego comes home to frida, drunk as hell, followed by the marx brothers. i cant believe they didnt make a marxism joke come on it was RIGHT THERE. THE MARX BROTHERS. KARL MARX. COME ON

frida paints her feelings.

this makes diego realize that frida is a genius and he is not half the artist she is. he proclaims he will now show his awe of her by sleeping with other women, starting “an hour ago.” to which frida replies, “and i will start sleeping with other women, starting two hours ago.” yes this was pretty much their relationship. though im just wondering how the hell did diego not know frida was this kind of artist until now? i know homers an idiot but jeez. art was how frida and diego met, diego knew from the get-go that frida was an incredible artist. i guess the fame got to his head or something. again, homer just being stupid.

“well enough already, while the art is still deco, okay?”

its time for the mural diego painted, Man At The Crossroads, to be unveiled:

rockefeller examines it. good and great so far, and then...uh oh

“Who’s that fellow…? With the beard, and the bolshevik smile…” “That’s the founder of Soviet Russia, Lenin!”

“B-b-but he’s a communist!” “Oh he just attended a couple of meetings.”

rockefeller will not have this communist in the temple to capitalism that is the rockefeller center, so he orders diego to paint over it. diego stands his ground and refuses. despite rockefeller’s threats, diego says that theres only one person he wants to be proud of him no matter what and in true homer & marge fashion, frida is touched by this. they happily leave the rockefeller center.

now, the real story of Man At The Crossroads and the rockefeller center was actually not that different. as soon as the rockefellers found out diego had snuck in a portrait of lenin into the mural, they ordered him to paint over it, to which he refused. diego even offered to include abraham lincoln and even american abolitionists in the mural as a compromise, but the rockefellers simply did not want any references to communism whatsoever. they did not complain about the hammer and sickle, though. yes, they did know diego was a communist and hired him anyway. what did they expect? lmao. diego said:

"Rather than mutilate the conception [of the mural], I shall prefer the physical destruction of the conception in its entirety, but preserving, at least, its integrity."

so they decided to destroy the mural before it was even finished and they never talked to each other again.

diego then repainted the mural at the palacio de bellas artes back in mexico, this time known as Man, Controller of the Universe. this new version included even more communist leaders and a depiction of john d. rockefeller jr. drinking at a nightclub, right underneath a depiction of syphilis bacteria. cue nelson haw-haw:

this was the version they used in the episode also, since the original was, well, never finished and also destroyed. only a black and white photograph of it exists, taken by diego before it was destroyed so he could remake it.

right so, homer!diego then pulls a Barthood and finishes the episode with a large mural summarizing the entire episode. he says some rick and morty thing i didnt get because i dont watch the show idk idc

the end

ALRIGHT NOW ITS TIME FOR THE STORY OF VINCENT VAN MOE

[a-little-slice-of-fandom]

I get so embarrassed when I see history fans talking about different Boleyns. Like, talking about her characterization on The Tudor, on The Six Wives of Henry, on Henry and His Six Wives etc. And then they get into Six and are like "... this Boleyn is a little bit different than the others, she isn't so strategic... actually she's not very smart". Like, we the fandom can say "If you pay attention and look at the script and watch the full bootleg, she's actually quite smart". But we can't ignore the fact that people that are not Six fans, and just Tudor times fans in general won't do all of those things. Boleyn is the most famous wife, so DLYH will be the song people will know the musical for, and we can't expect them to think "No, she's actually lying and dumbing herself down to win the audience's sympathy"

Firstly I’m not blaming anyone for their initial reaction to or their opinions or Don’t Lose Ur Head. If someone dislikes Boleyn’s portrayal in Six the musical then that’s completely fine, I’m not going to say that their opinion isn’t valid. My posts about Boleyn in Six aren’t for people who don’t like the musical, they’re for people who are already in the fandom. I wouldn’t expect non-fans to analyse the script of Six or the album because its not something their interested in. Six, like every other piece of media that has ever existed, is entirely subjective and I can totally understand why people would dislike Six and the characterisations of the queens. All I ask in return is that non fans respect that many people do like Six and enjoy the show as a whole and listen to us when we point out that maybe it isn’t as clear cut or things aren’t as immediately obvious as they first thought.

Here’s the thing about The Tudors though: yes, they had a fantastic version of Anne Boleyn and I adore Natalie Dormer in that role...but then I personally feel that same show completely butchered Katherine Howard. On the other hand, a lot of people agree that Six’s strongest asset is All You Wanna Do and it’s portrayal of Katherine as a victim rather than a villain. I will admit that I really disliked the portrayal of Howard in the Tudors when I first came across clips on YouTube. However, until I had seen the entire show, I refrained from forming a full opinion on her character and on series four of the Tudors as a whole because I knew it was unfair to judge an entire series by only a few clips. I still personally believe that they did Howard a massive disservice, but there are one or two good elements here and there that I wouldn’t have discovered unless I watched the whole show. I waited until I had access to all the content available and then formed my overall opinion, and when if someone tells me that they actually really like series 4 of the Tudors then I’m not going to try and take that away from them! In fact, I’m actively glad that they’re enjoying and having a good time with something I personally didn’t get a lot out of.

(Also isn’t Anne of a thousand days supposed to be inaccurate in places as well? Or am I thinking of a different play?)

Plus I think people need to look at how Six is presented. The Tudors is a serious, historical drama and as such you would want the characters in the show to reflect that tone and the premise. Six is a 75 minute musical, nearly always listed as a comedy, where the entire premise revolves around the fact that the six wives have somehow been brought back from the dead after 500 years and their first instinct was to form a girl band. Like...the idea of six alone is absolutely insane! The tone and therefore the characterisations are obviously going to be very different to what would be present in something that is more serious. It’s kind of like trying to compare an incredibly serious documentary to a horrible histories episode. Both are very different but that doesn’t mean one is bad and one is good. (Sidenote I adore horrible histories and it was what made me want to learn about and study history in the first place. I’m not knocking it or anything, I’m just using it as a comparison.)

Now I’m not saying that Toby and Lucy have a get out of jail free card when it comes to historical accuracy, in fact I’ve often talked about the things they could have done better or added in, but from the presentation of Six alone you should be able to tell that Six isn’t going to be like the Tudors or Anne of a thousand days or anything like that. It isn’t being presented in the same way. I knew from the moment I watched the Olivier’s performance with all the sparkly outfits and modern slang that I should take everything with a grain of salt and just enjoy Six for what it is: a fun and catchy musical with lots of female empowerment.

As a sidenote, I’ve always personally believed that historical accuracy and good are not synonyms. Something can be super historically accurate but then fall flat on its face from a dramatic perspective. But that’s not what happened with Six. Six isn’t historically accurate 100 percent of the time. It doesn’t hide this fact either, explicitly saying in the show “it’s not what went down in history” and the two writers admitting that they have regrets with some of the queens. But that doesn’t mean six isn’t good a show, because from a purely dramatic perspective...six does work. You can’t deny that Six is a good musical. It wouldn’t have 7 ongoing productions with two more in the works if it wasn’t working as a musical. It wouldn’t be nominated for and then win awards if it wasn’t working as a musical. It wouldn’t be worth millions of pounds if it wasn���t working as a musical. Again, not everyone has to like six the musical and I respect those who don’t but it’s success implies that it’s working on some basic level.

Basically what I’m trying to say is that I understand why people might write off Anne Boleyn from Six very quickly. I think it’s slightly unfair to write her off (especially if you’ve only listened to DLUH and not seen the whole show), but I do understand it and respect people’s personal opinions. All I ask is that they respect mine and the fact that I do like six and I do like the characterisation of Boleyn. I don’t think anyone should be embarrassed for saying they like something just because others dislike it.

(Also if any historical blogs want to vague post about this post...refer back to the sentences were I talked about respecting personal opinions. I’m not saying people should watch six to revise for their exams or anything, I’m just saying that people can still enjoy things that aren’t historically accurate and they shouldn’t feel bad about it)

[writingwife-83]

#46 “What happens if I do this?” sounds intriguing ;) Sherlolly of course 😊

I ended up using some inspiration from this post by @muffin-n-waffle who was kind enough to let me use the idea. Seeing as I don’t know anything about jiu jitsu, I didn’t go into any real details about moves. Who needs total historical accuracy? 😂

“I’m not entirely sure about this,” Sherlock muttered as an aside to Mary.

Mary clicked her tongue at him. “I thought you supported the suffragists.”

“You know very well that I do. This is a slightly different matter.”

“But it is a noble task, Mr Holmes,” she chided. “You should be proud to assist women in learning to properly defend themselves. Besides, a cousin of mine will be here that I should very much like you to meet. Oh, and there she is!”

Sherlock turned to see a petite young woman approaching them with a bright smile.

“Hello, my dear,” Mary greeted her warmly. “Miss Hooper, I’d like to introduce my friend and Dr Watson’s colleague, Mr Sherlock Holmes. Mr Holmes, this is my cousin Miss Molly Hooper. She has just recently moved to London and I felt sure you would be happy to make her acquaintance.”

“Oh? And why might that be?” Sherlock replied, quite obviously unimpressed.

The class was just being called to order when Mary smiled almost smugly at him and replied, “Miss Hooper is a Mortician.”

It occurred to Sherlock that his jaw was hanging a bit slack and he realized he should probably shut it. A female mortician...fascinating.

Everyone was told to take their places then and the jiu jitsu instructor began explaining some basics. As he spoke, Sherlock found himself distracted and repeatedly glancing over to where Miss Hooper stood beside Mrs Watson.

Trust Mary Watson to have a cousin who works with the dead.

“Mr Holmes was kind enough to volunteer for this task,” the instructor suddenly said, reminding Sherlock of the fact that he was still there for a specific job. “Mr Holmes will be acting the part of an aggressor, and you will be testing out some of these methods of defense. Who would like to go first?”

By some strange chance, the instructor instantly pointed to Miss Hooper. Or perhaps not chance.

The universe was rarely so lazy.

Miss Hooper stepped in front of him, a cheery little smile on her lips and a sparkle in her eyes. Sherlock couldn’t help thinking she was the very opposite of what anyone should expect to see in a mortuary. A fact which made her all the more intriguing.

“Mr Holmes will grasp your arm firmly, and I’ll show you how to react, Miss.”

Sherlock did as he was told and the instructor explained how to easily wrench her arm free from his grasp. She did so with impressive speed and precision.

He couldn’t help a little smile at her focused and determined expression.

“The attacker may also approach from behind,” the instructor explained. “If you would turn, Miss Hooper, we can demonstrate the defense in such a situation. Mr Holmes, will you gently wrap your arm around Miss Hoopers neck, restraining her?”

“Mm, yes a difficult restraint to escape from,” Sherlock commented as he anchored his arm around her, trying to ignore the vanilla and lavender scent coming off of her chestnut hair which was right in front of his nose.

“Is it?” Molly replied quietly. “What happens if I do this?”

Before he knew what was coming, her little foot lifted and swung back, the heel of her boot connecting with his shin and making him jerk backward with a little yelp.

The instructor laughed nervously. “That was- er- not the escape method I was about to suggest.”

“Oh, forgive me,” Molly replied. “Was it biting his arm? That came to mind as well. But I know how unfortunate human bites can be, so I thought to spare poor Mr Holmes’ arm. I could also have reached back and gouged his eyeballs out with an easy little pop using the thumbs. For obvious reasons though, I decided not to try that one either,” she explained with a sweet little laugh.

Sherlock rubbed his aching shin, unable to tear his eyes away from the small woman before him and trying to ignore Mary’s snickering in the front row.

“No, Miss Hooper, it was none of those...interesting methods.” The instructor cleared his throat. “Perhaps another volunteer would like to practice? You seem capable enough of defending yourself.”

Sherlock straightened up again and Molly gave him a quick smile, along with a blush if he wasn’t mistaken, as she took her place among the class again.

He began to question how he’d keep going with the task at hand now, seeing as he’d just received a serious and destructive blow. Not to his shin though. The damage seemed to be located much higher.

It had settled quite heavily in the long ignored left side of his chest.

[sofiaguardalatempesta]

Soooo Cursed is my current obsession and I'm really bored (not really I'm just procastinating) and I had this words floating in my head for some days

so I had to free them

this is just my opinion, I don't want to attack or to roast anyone, everyone is free to think and to ship what they want I'm not judging. You are expressing your opinion, I am expressing my opinion and two different points of view can be valid at the same time.

I see people who ship Nimulot complain all the time because someone is apparently shaming them but when I look for the actual incriminated posts I find:

So since everyone is talking about this ship I also wanted to write my opinion (my university books are judging me, I can feel it)(btw my English sucks so ignore the mistakes).

Look I'm not trying to spit poison on the people who ship them but personally when I watch the show I see Nimue as a 17/18 teenager and I think that Lancelot is probably in his 20s (maybe 25) he is definitely a man not a teenager, let's not go to "at the time bigger age gaps were the norm" because Cursed is a fantasy and they already said fuck historical accuracy in at least five languages.

To be honest when it comes to Nimue I would really like to see her character being explored more (Lady of the Lake, that's some poweful shit), she is the protagonist but I feel like she doesn't really have a connection with the audience, I don't want to criticize Katherine Langford but her acting still feels a bit cold. Nimue is a teenager and tecnically she still has a lot to learn and I feel like she is just at the beginning of her "becoming the lady of the lake" trip. I know that some people ship her with Morgana, I would love to see bi or pan Nimue and I think that they actually have the best chemistry.

I can't understand why everyone has so many issues with the relationship between Nimue and Arthur, I don't think that chemistry is a problem, they are actually cute together. I think that Arthur and Nimue are nearly the same age, maybe he is one or two years older but they are both still teenagers and they both make stupid mistakes, I really liked how Arthur changed during the season and I can't wait to see how they will continue his storyline in the next one.

Lancelot is more adult than them and he still has a long road in front of him. Redemption is not something that can happen in the last five minutes of the last episode, that was only the beginning of something. Let's be real, he lost a huge part of his life and he needs to learn how to live in a normal society, I'm really curious about his journey of redemption and self discovery (if they don't mess this up). And yes he wears dark clothes like Kylo Ren but I don't think that they are actually that similar, he is more similar to Sebastian Morgenstern and to Murtagh from Eragon (I can write an essay on how similar they are but I'm too lazy).

I can't imagine Lancelot having a love interest in the second season (yes I know that y'all are already picturing him and Nimue play husband and wife in a Medieval cottagecore world). I actually don't think that the similarities he has with Nimue are relevant. What? They are both outcasts and they have scars on their backs? Sorry but this time Edward and Bella are winning, this is not a love story better than Twilight (and no you can't just know that they have the best chemistry, that's not how it works, we haven't seen them together on screen yet). In the Arthurian legends they have a mother and son relationship so they could easily have an older brother/younger sister situation (after his LONG journey of redemption). Of all the characters that we already met I can see him having romantic feelings for Gawain (I hope he is still alive). Gawain is the one that made the Monk start to think on his own and they are going to be important for each other (they are the KNIGHTS and they will both have a crucial role in Percival's life).

Another character I can totally see with Lancelot is Red Spear if she is Guinevere (that would be EPIC). Red Spear looks older and more mature than Nimue and Arthur, she and Lancelot are two warriors and they will probably fight on the same side, they would be diffident at the beginning but slowly they can develop mutual respect for each other and after some seasons that feelings can become something more? That would be an interesting interpretation of the whole Guinevere/Lancelot story.

It's just one season, the possibilities are ENDLESS (I didn't want to write that much but I couldn't contain myself). I know that Cursed is more an entertainment show but I really hope that they will take the necessary time to explore all the characters, they can play with the story because it's a fantasy and they really have infinite possibilities to explore. I think that a well made story, a story that puts quality at the first place, can make everyone agree with each other and how do you achieve quality? With time. (But we should bully Netflix until they announce the second season)

[nev3rfound]

kings and queens : p.p

brief summary: Peter was unsure what to expect from working with Y/n on this history project, but what does happen surprises him in more ways than one.

requested: yes by @mixed-fandoms-girl (I twisted it ever so slightly, but it is pretty much the same storyline!) word count: 1.7k warnings? none. 

* requests are open if you have any ideas, feel free to drop ‘em in my inbox or message me. *

Peter walked in, flustered as all eyes were on him. “Sorry I’m late Sir,” He stutters as he keeps his head down as he nears his own seat, wishing the ground could swallow him whole.

“Late again, Parker?” His entire body tenses as he turns his head and smiles to the girl sat next to him. With a single glance, he softens, melts under the weight of the chair as you open your notebook to write notes, not saying another word. 

“And now I want to talk about your latest project,” Sighing to himself Peter buries his head in his hands, hearing a small laugh from beside him making him smile beneath his palms. “based on the fact we are coming up to our one hundred and fiftieth celebration of the school having been built your assignment is to produce a presentation based on one aspect of the Victorian era. What element you wish to do is up to you, but you will be paired based on who you’re sat with.” 

As their teacher finished a series of groans or pleased sounds left various students lips, but Peter remained quiet unsure what to make of this. “Guess we’re partners?” You quietly question as he removes his hands from his face, flashing you an apprehensive smile. 

“Yeah,” He mumbles as he looks off to see Ned and MJ sat together, already discussing ideas. “guess we are.” 

*

You were sitting in the corner of the library, pushing your glasses up as Peter walked over slowly as he felt intrusive over your reading. “Hey,” He whispers, causing you to jump.

Laughing quietly to yourself you take a deep breath before closing your book. “I didn’t even hear you coming.” You joke as Peter shrugs his shoulders before taking the seat next to you. “Thought any more about our topic?” 

Peter shakes his head. “I thought we could do it on the dancing or the royals or maybe even the torture methods used?” He rambles as you quietly sit listening, and as he turns his head to face you he waits for a split second before you snap out of your gaze.

“Sorry,” You whisper as you can already feel a blush rising towards your face, something Peter can’t ignore as his heart flutters, but why was it fluttering? It was only Y/n, right? “I know that Cecelia and Kate are doing the Royals, they’ve already gone to the Museum and done all their research.” You sigh loudly in disappointment having spent hours having read about Queen Victoria growing up and now you can’t even base your project on one of your most known subjects. “And MJ is doing dancing with Ned.” 

Glancing behind him he watches as his two friends are sat in front of a computer, quietly arguing together. “So, torture?” He raises his eyebrow, the subject not exactly what he was anticipating researching.

You purse your lips as an idea suddenly crosses your mind and Peter can almost see the mechanics behind your eyes whirring away. “I’ve got it,” You smile brightly at Peter whilst he waits for you to explain. “how about the several assassination attempts on Queen Victoria? And then we can link it into torture briefly of how he died?” 

Peter nods, agreeing to the subject as you pick up all of your books from the desk before rising to your feet. “Okay, are you busy tonight?” You ask and he slowly shakes his head. “Good, if you want you can come to mine and we’ll start researching?” 

It was something Peter hadn’t expected, the sheer confidence and lack of awkwardness you had about you as you stood still with all of your books in your arms. “Erm, yeah.” He responds as he scratches the back of his neck, unsure of his own words.

“Great, I’ll see you say 5?” You wait for a response and he simply nods before you walk off out of the library whilst Peter leans back into his chair, unsure what had just happened. 

*

It had been a week since the two of you had started researching for your project. You spent most evenings together that start with the full intent of studying and actually researching, but most of them end up in the two of you having random conversations, learning more about one another.

One thing Peter couldn’t help but be fascinated by was how much you loved history. Your room was filled with small historical artefacts that should be in Museums, yet here they were lining your shelves. Whenever he asked about one of them you revealed the full story off of the top of your head as if it were your own. 

His eyes widened as you rambled on, smiling brightly as he listened to you explaining Cleopatra and Anthony leading into the story of the Sphinx and why you have a small version on your shelf in front of a jar of sand. 

You wave your hand in front of Peters' face as he lets his hand slips that were holding his head upright. “Sorry,” You mutter before sitting back down on your bed, crossing your legs. “that must’ve been boring to listen to.” He could sense you retracting yourself, regretting having spoken about it. 

Instinctively he stretches his hand out onto yours, “I can tell how much you love it, I could listen to you for hours.” The words leave his lips before his brain allows him to block it. You stare at him, clearly startled by the sentence. 

“What?” You ask clearly, but you remain still as his hand rests on yours.

Peter smiles down at your hands before lifting his head back up. “I, I erm,” His brain cuts him short, leaving him to stutter as he struggles to form a sentence as he is now apparently aware of what he just said. “you’re something else, Y/n.” He chuckles to himself, shaking his head in disbelief. “And I never knew how smart, beautiful and truly fascinating you were until we started this project.” 

Unable to speak you remain with your mouth ever so slightly open, waiting for a smart response to come to you, but you’re stunned. “And?” You think aloud, realising how stupid it sounds as you knit your eyebrows together.

“And I would love to take you to the Annual celebration after our presentation.” He lifts his hand to rest yours in his before he squeezes it lightly. 

“I’d love to, Pete.” You respond as you look down, unable to hide your smile spreading across your face. 

*

Fussing over your dress you turn to see MJ in a similar style gown, except hers is more Gothic as she smiles to you. “Looks good.” She comments on your dress as you smooth your hands over it one last time. 

“Isn’t half tight.” You mutter as you try to loosen the lace in the back. 

MJ laughs quietly before standing behind you, helping you out so you can actually breathe. You let out a deep sigh of relief as you thank her before the two of you head towards the school.

This would be the first of the Schools celebrations you’d have experienced, hell the first many of you would live through. It was the sort of thing the school would have every twenty-five years, each time the same Victorian tradition with all the works of making the school as close as it was when it first opened, with better electricity.

As you walk into the main hallways leading to the hall you look around whilst MJ whistles. “I didn’t expect it to be this good.” She mumbles as you nod in agreement. It was something else, an entirely different building to the one you’d been studying in hours ago. 

Music sounded, leading towards the hall as you slowly walked down hearing music you didn’t recognise. 

Pushing the doors open it was filled with decorations of the Victorian era, there was a large sheet covering the stage as old videos played of news reports and information about the Queen and Albert. You laughed to yourself, impressed by the historical accuracy of everything in the room. 

“Looks like they did a good job, huh?” Turning around you smile brightly as Peter stands in a full Victorian suit with a waistcoat underneath his jacket. He removes his top hat, bringing it across his chest as he bows. “M’Lady.” 

You chuckle, shaking your head in disbelief as you hold the sides of your dress, curtsying. “Sir.” The two of you struggle to keep a straight face as MJ rolls her eyes. 

“Looks like we’re just in time for our first dance.” MJ nudges you lightly as Peter throws his hat off to the side of the room, holding his hand out.

“Would M’Lady care to dance?” He tries to force a British accent, and you raise your eyebrows, impressed by how good it actually sounds.

Accepting his hand you walk along to where everyone stands in a long line, girls on one side, boys on the other. 

You all held your hands up, not allowed to touch. The idea of the dance was to create intimacy without the need of touching your partner to experience it. It created electricity without the spark. 

Smiling you manage not to trip over your dress as the dance comes to an end and you prepare for a slow dance. 

Peter slowly moves to place one hand on your wait and the other in your own hand. Smiling reassuringly he glances down. “I’m terrified of standing on your dress,” He mutters. “you look really beautiful tonight, M’Lady.” 

“As you do kind Sir.” You retort as you begin to sway slowly to the music. 

“Y/n?” Peter speaks up as you lift your head up from his chest. “Would you like to go out with me sometime for real?” 

You raise an eyebrow to him, leaving him hanging as his eyes bore into yours. “Yeah,” You reply and you can almost feel Peter relaxing. “I’d love to Peter.” 

He lowers his hand from yours, placing both of them on your waist as you rest against his chest, sighing in content as you continue to sway like kings and queens.

[gaslightwestern]

11 Questions Tag

Tagged by @inexorableblob​. Thank you! Tagging @cirianne​, @ardawyn​, @teacupwriter​, and @nyxnevin​. Feel free to ignore!

1. How long have you been writing? I wrote fanfiction and short stories throughout high school and into undergrad. Then shit happened and my desire to write fiction went dormant until last year when I began When Sins Haunt. I did write/blog about Canadian history for four years while the fiction side of me was asleep.

2. What are the major themes of your current wip(s)? When Sins Haunt - All kinds of love, revenge, holding onto the past, the ways in which people respond to adversity, whether people really change, badassery comes in all shapes and sizes, friendship, and making space for yourself in a world/narrative that tries to exclude you.

3. What do you want people to take away from your story? I just want people to enjoy it and take away whatever they please.

4. Would you be excited if people write fanfiction about your wip(s)? I would be so flattered I'd probably cry.

5. Does your WIP have romance? Tell me about it!! If not tell me about a friendship/important relationship in your wip!! Love is a major theme in When Sins Haunt. Romantic love, unrequited love, obsessive love, love between family and friends, love that endures despite loss. I’ll only go into detail about one: Charlotte and Jack are old friends reunited in WSH. He had a crush on her and was involved when everything changed for Charlotte 4.5 years ago. When they team up, they're just friends...but as they go through stuff, the crush comes back with a vengeance. The problem? Charlotte is still in love with her late husband. (Cue guilt, fear, and hopelessness...on both sides). Their friendship is near iron-clad however and it gets to the point where they will do anything for the other. I’m still working things out with their relationship, but I know what blooms between them is based on respect, acceptance, and support.

6. Who is your favorite OC? Tell me about them! Charlotte-Not-Fucking-Around-O’Shea is on a mission to put an end to Warren Howard and his dastardly Cobalt Gang. She is an extremely caring woman, a loving mother to boot, who will put herself in harm’s way to save others. She’s  relentless and doesn’t know how to let go of the past, no matter how much it drags her down. She’s also quite the shootist for a former high society lady.

7. Rank your OCs by their capability in a foot chase. Jack - Homeboy is a fastboy. He's used to running (from cops, criminals, etc). Warren - Long, strong legs. Almost tied with Jack. Charlotte - She can run fast, but not like Jack and if she's wearing a corset that'll leave her winded faster.

8. Do you feel that mistakes are important learning tools in the writing? Of course.

9. What’s your go-to writing beverage? Black coffee.

10. Do you believe in the advice “kill your darlings?” In terms getting rid of stuff that you love but doesn't advance the story, yes. In terms of killing your favorite characters? Well, I only kill characters if it's necessary to the plot or it makes sense in terms of their arc. Killing people for shock value alone is poor writing. Come at me.

11. Do you prefer plotting or worldbuilding? Why? Plotting because worldbuilding with historical fiction is more like world-recreating. In my case, I’m shooting for historical accuracy so I have to recreate what life looked, smelled, tasted, sounded, and felt like 137 years ago, as  accurately as possible, across a wide expanse of land. It involves immense, ongoing research and is so difficult that at times I wish I could just make stuff up.

[felinisfeloney]

ME: I’m not going to write anything for this... no i’m too busy

also me: i wrote while you weren’t looking

me: motherfucker...

So yeah this connected to that historical france au... don’t @ me on accuracy because this pure rough set up but it is fact that France 30-40ish years prior to the revolution went through this pastoral idealism stage where the aristocracy were taken in by this idealized vision of peasantry and this played a lot in the popularizing of the vielle for its folk tradition roots along with the fact that is was one of the few instruments considered safe for woman to play wuthout looking obscene and manish. Hilariously though in real context historically the symphonia (other name for the vielle or the hurdy gurdy) was used mostly by peasants particularly ones with any deformity (Especially the blind) and they usually sounded awful because they were illmaintained in most cases. There’s also a lot of it just being important for festivals... Plus as someone who’s listened to the hurdy gurdy a lot I love it but sometimes it really does sound like you’re trying to summon cthullu

also Estelle goes on a while before realizing Flynn is blind when she tries to show him her sheet music and he triest to explain he can’t see it so written scores are fairly useless. And she’s just so amazed he’s learned everything by ear alone.

She loved the sound. It was a deep sound that was unlike most string instruments she’d ever heard with it’s organ like tone and the way the keys when pressed shifted like a piano. There were so many ways to play and so many little sounds you could find just in playing the crank. It was beautiful and sometimes even haunting in a way that reminded her of the sky. The shape was comforting and somehow chaotic in its form. So precise and yet it felt absurd.

Estelle was fond of the instrument to say the least so when the carriage rolled on through the French countryside and they came towards the small rustic town near the villa they would be staying at she heard the beautiful sound drift through the air she couldn’t help peaking out to see who was playing.

He looked a simple man- poor- with patchy clothes and dirty yellow locks. His eyes shut tight as he played with remarkable precision and skill that had those notes drift beautifully into the air mixed in with a singing voice that seemed to be making notes rather than words. She wondered what that part was about. A man walking by dropped a single coin in a tattered hat at his feet and she saw a small nod of thanks as his pace never ceased.  

“His playing seemed rather nice for a commoner,” Ioder spoke as they rolled further and further away from the sound.

Estelle turned away from the window and gave a soft nod, “Well, the vielle is the instrument of the rustic man as well so it seems only natural.”

“Do you wish to play once we get to the manor?”

Her hands twitched with an itch to play, “Yes. I do,” but really there were more important matters to attend to then her wanted need to play an instrument. She really did wish sometimes she could learn something… less ladylike. Oh the trumpet would be fun or the cello- if they weren’t so out of fashion a guitar, perhaps! “Ioder do you think I’m strange?”

“In what way?”

“Never mind. It’s nothing. Just ignore I said anything.”

As the carriage rocked back and forth she thought over and over about those notes and the melody.

I wonder what song it was?

---

Flynn’s fingers were rough and calloused from both poverty and playing of his beloved vielle. He remembered that there must have been a time when hours of plucking the strings and pressing the keys left him with blisters and Yuri had once mentioned he’d bled all over his strings but he could never picture such a time or feeling as he played his instrument today.

The sun was rather warm and he was tempted to move off street towards where he knew a shady tree sat but people didn’t pay if they couldn’t see you and it was time to move to a new location soon anyway.

In all honesty, he really didn’t need the walking stick but it helped remind people when he was in public. Strange to live in a town his whole life and yet people would forget the obvious facts. As he walked he heard the sound of footsteps and a small call, “Hey, moving already?”

“Well it is after noon.” Flynn said with a shrug as he kept down the road only stumbling a bit when his foot hit a rather large rock.

“Some fancy carriage came rolling through town.” Yuri said reaching out to hand him a small sack. “You forgot to eat.”

“Ah, that time of year again.”

“You don’t mind if I listen to you play for a while?” Flynn shook his head as he bit into a bit of stale bread.

“Not unless you’re skipping out on work.” Between the two of them Yuri is honestly the real breadwinner most days.

A laugh, “Right, right. To bad not all of us get to sit around playing music all day.”

It was meant as a joke obviously but Flynn couldn’t help but feel embittered by it. He wasn’t a viellist by choice even if he loved the instrument. It was simply in the lineup of jobs available for someone like him- someone broken as the world like to put it to him often- simply not in the grace of god enough to present better this was the one he’d landed on. He wished he could have a job like Yuri and not feel like a freeloading beggar living off his grace at times.

“Well I’ll be sure to play a special tune for you for working hard.”

“I don’t know how, but I swear you are the only person I know that can make that thing play music.”

“Come on, there are others!” Flynn protests because he’s heard some beautiful viellists.

He can hear the grimace on Yuri’s face, “Ugh, it always sounds like it’s summoning some deep sea monster or they’re calling down the rapture. I refuse to call that music.”

“I heard there’s been constructions lately of many wonderful and intricate pieces now that the nobility have taken a liking to it…” Flynn smiled thinking of what the notes could sound like. “I’d like to hear it.”

[quoteablebooks]

Genre: Romance, Fantasy, Historical Fiction

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Synopsis:

The year is 1945. Claire Randall, a former combat nurse, is just back from the war and reunited with her husband on a second honeymoon when she walks through a standing stone in one of the ancient circles that dot the British Isles. Suddenly she is a Sassenach—an “outlander”—in a Scotland torn by war and raiding border clans in the year of Our Lord...1743. Hurled back in time by forces she cannot understand, Claire is catapulted into the intrigues of lairds and spies that may threaten her life, and shatter her heart. For here James Fraser, a gallant young Scots warrior, shows her a love so absolute that Claire becomes a woman torn between fidelity and desire—and between two vastly different men in two irreconcilable lives.

*Opinions*

I did something a little different this time and wrote the review while I was reading since it was such a long novel. That has lead it to be a rather long review. 

I have had this book for almost a year at this point, but at almost 900 pages it was rather intimidating, especially with my inability to find time to read recently. However, I finally decided to take the bull by the horns and dive in. I was so pleased to see that most of the chapters are broken up into smaller segments, making it easier to move quickly through the book and not being locked into needing forty-five minutes to get through a chapter. I’m one of those people that really hates stopping in the middle of a chapter without a clear break in the action. There is also a good pace to the novel so that it's not that hard to convince yourself to go one more chapter break or make it to the end of the chapter. That being said, the overall plot of the story moves rather slowly, which would account for the novel's 850 pages. Still, after all the hype, I went in cautiously, not wanting to get my hopes up and be disappointed as I have been in the past. 

We started in the “present” of 1945 and even though we aren’t in 1945 long, Frank Randall finds the page time to be rather condescending and annoying. I do believe that is the point, his dismissal of his wife while he hunts down the family connection with Jonathan “Black Jack” Randall, to highlight the difference with Jamie, but it still bothered me. Now, I get it, I have family members who are very into genealogy, but to complete ignore your wife who you barely saw for six years to look at old records is ridiculous. Also, Frank’s view of adoption instantly made me sour toward him, but it’s a viewpoint that a number of people still hold. Not to mention how he reacted to Claire swearing. Now my viewpoint might be colored because I know that Jaime is the main romantic interest due to the television show, but still. Just saying you love someone doesn’t mean much when you’re a giant ass, Frank. To be honest, I don’t know why Claire tried so hard to get back to him. Getting back to indoor plumbing I understood, but not to get back to Frank. That coupled with his ancestor being the primary villain in the novel and I didn’t really give a damn about Frank. 

Something that I liked in regards to Jaime, which I hadn’t expected, was that he was younger than Claire. There was something so endearing about Jamie becoming flustered when Claire even suggested they sleep in the same room with absolutely not romantic intentions toward one another. Jaime has a lot of sweetness in him and while he has mysteries, he isn’t overly brooding, which is slightly overdone these days. Still, there are moments when he wants to be Claire's “master” that make him unlikable. Claire tells him no multiple times and they end up having sex anyway. While I am going to address this when it’s with males who aren’t Jaime, it is still nonconsensual sex (also known as rape) even if it’s a man that you are married to. You can argue that it’s the time and that makes it acceptable, seen a marital duty or whatever, but it doesn’t make Jaime likable. However, that doesn’t make me completely hate Jaime, due to his youth and inexperience, it just makes him a complex character. I just wish romance, as a genre, could stop pushing the no actually means a coy yes story line. It’s not sexy on the page or in real life. It’s rape. 

As with everything that is set in historical times, rape is spoken about, implied, and threatened on a number of occasions. It even happens to a male character, though I don’t want to spoil who. I understand, it is the truth of that point in time, but I personally feel that more of discussion needs to be had about it if you chose to focus on that part of history on so many occasions. I mean, Gabaldon has time travel in this novel, she could have toned down the amount non-consensual touching, kissing, undressing, groping, almost rape and actual rape in the case of Jaime taking Claire after she told him no on a couple occasions. Every male that runs into Claire either threatens to assault her or does assault her in some way and it’s just tiring. I thought that the novel was done with that particular issue once they had left the castle, but the minute that a male that was described as somewhat attractive and not crippled once again enters the narrative, Claire is forced into a position where she should be sexually assaulted. Then it is threatened again with a male that is mentally unstable. If that is the only way you can build tension in a scene with two members of the opposite sex, maybe take a step back and looking at how you’re crafting the story a little more carefully. This isn’t selling the romantic dream of every man wanting to be with you, it is reinforcing the knowledge that every woman has that we should always be on our guard and are never safe, which isn’t something I read fiction novels to be reminded of to this degree. 

One thing that I will give Gabaldon a small bit of credit for was how she dealt with the male rape victim in the novel. I don’t want to spoil who it is or the specifics surrounding the assault, but I believe she gave enough page space and emotional weight, Now this wasn’t just an assault, but torture as well, but the feeling of helplessness and shame that surrounded the character in regards to sex afterwards I believe was well done. However, that leads to another issue I have with this novel, that both homosexual characters are portrayed poorly. One is a villain and it is implied that he raped his younger brother, the other is a caricature and literally only in the novel for a while as a sort of comedic character, who also attempts to rape young boys. You can’t claim historical accuracy in this poor representation. While it might not have been written down, I highly doubt that every non-straight individual in the Scottish Highlands was a pedophile and/or rapist. 

Moving on from that, Gabaldon got the sibling dynamic between Jaime and his sister Jenny down pretty well. While we may live in a more civilized time, this is basically how arguments between me and my older brother go down, sans the whole kilt incident obviously. While it was frustrating that Jaime didn’t give her a chance to explain herself, especially when he already knew about Randall’s issue from Claire explaining her experience, it is a pretty accurate representation of sibling stubbornness. Jaime had years to form a picture in his mind of what had happened and it’s hard to listen to reason, from anyone, when that happens. Jaime’s interactions with his namesake nephew were also painfully adorable and it was a nice respite from the constant danger that they faced while at the castle. I really enjoyed this whole section of the novel, though the weird sexual display when describing what it’s like to be pregnant seemed a bit odd to me. Still, it was easy to understand the mood of the room and it was a rather wonderfully written section. 

Now to address the criticism that Claire is a Mary Sue that I had seen on a number of occasions. The knowledge that she had of medicine from her time as a nurse during the war makes perfect sense for the time period that she was living. The interest in herbs would also make sense if she had learned so much medical knowledge, hell I am interested in herbs and I have zero medical knowledge. While, I will admit, the whole traveling around with her uncle on archeological digs was a bit much, it’s no different than Indiana Jones and no one has a problem with him. While I don’t think that addition was necessary, most people adapt to roughing it when there is no other choice, it wasn’t something that pulled me out of the story. Honestly, I think what saves Claire from being insufferable is that she makes stupid decisions and is not a perfect person. I’m alright with a very knowledgeable main character as long as she also has flaws, which Claire has many. She is a very alive character and I appreciate that about her, even if I don’t like her all the time. 

It was a brave move on Gabaldon’s part, is that she lets the story take a very leisurely pace. There are whole sections that don’t move forward the plot, but they do give us the personality of the Scots that Claire is traveling with or meeting during her trip into the past. It is probably why the novel is almost 900 pages, however I appreciate learning to care about and getting complex characters to fall in love with or loath. While I do think that some areas could have been tightened up a bit, you are pulled with Claire into the Highlands and it is rare that you find yourself thinking that Gabaldon should just speed it up already. While it does seem as if the plot becomes a little repetitive, Claire finds herself in danger, is saved, becomes comfortable in her surrounds, and then the cycle is repeated, I never forced myself to pick up the book and dive back in. The only section that I found completely unnecessary was the entire battle with the wolf near the end of the book. The injuries from that encounter really have no bearing, nor does the actual killing as Claire is forced to kill humans a little later on. It was too long and I found myself really not all that interested. A couple paragraphs could have neatly wrapped up that section and moved the plot forward, but it was the only time I felt that way. It really is well situated to a television format, and it’s easy to see how sections could be broken up into episodes. I might search out the show now that I’m finished with the novel. Overall, I enjoyed my adventure in the Highlands and will continue with the rest of the series, but I don’t see this becoming my favorite series. There are just too many problems with it that I find hard to overlook or ignore.

[hallsp]

The New York Times

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Opinion

GRAY MATTER

How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race'

By David Reich

March 23, 2018

In 1942, the anthropologist Ashley Montagu published “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race,” an influential book that argued that race is a social concept with no genetic basis. A classic example often cited is the inconsistent definition of “black.” In the United States, historically, a person is “black” if he has any sub-Saharan African ancestry; in Brazil, a person is not “black” if he is known to have any European ancestry. If “black” refers to different people in different contexts, how can there be any genetic basis to it?

Beginning in 1972, genetic findings began to be incorporated into this argument. That year, the geneticist Richard Lewontin published an important study of variation in protein types in blood. He grouped the human populations he analyzed into seven “races” — West Eurasians, Africans, East Asians, South Asians, Native Americans, Oceanians and Australians — and found that around 85 percent of variation in the protein types could be accounted for by variation within populations and “races,” and only 15 percent by variation across them. To the extent that there was variation among humans, he concluded, most of it was because of “differences between individuals.”

In this way, a consensus was established that among human populations there are no differences large enough to support the concept of “biological race.” Instead, it was argued, race is a “social construct,” a way of categorizing people that changes over time and across countries.

It is true that race is a social construct. It is also true, as Dr. Lewontin wrote, that human populations “are remarkably similar to each other” from a genetic point of view.

ADVERTISEMENT

But over the years this consensus has morphed, seemingly without questioning, into an orthodoxy. The orthodoxy maintains that the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today’s racial terms are so trivial when it comes to any meaningful biological traits that those differences can be ignored.

The orthodoxy goes further, holding that we should be anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations. The concern is that such research, no matter how well-intentioned, is located on a slippery slope that leads to the kinds of pseudoscientific arguments about biological difference that were used in the past to try to justify the slave trade, the eugenics movement and the Nazis’ murder of six million Jews.

I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.

ADVERTISEMENT

Recent genetic studies have demonstrated differences across populations not just in the genetic determinants of simple traits such as skin color, but also in more complex traits like bodily dimensions and susceptibility to diseases. For example, we now know that genetic factors help explain why northern Europeans are taller on average than southern Europeans, why multiple sclerosis is more common in European-Americans than in African-Americans, and why the reverse is true for end-stage kidney disease.

I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims.

This is why it is important, even urgent, that we develop a candid and scientifically up-to-date way of discussing any such differences, instead of sticking our heads in the sand and being caught unprepared when they are found.

To get a sense of what modern genetic research into average biological differences across populations looks like, consider an example from my own work. Beginning around 2003, I began exploring whether the population mixture that has occurred in the last few hundred years in the Americas could be leveraged to find risk factors for prostate cancer, a disease that occurs 1.7 times more often in self-identified African-Americans than in self-identified European-Americans. This disparity had not been possible to explain based on dietary and environmental differences, suggesting that genetic factors might play a role.

ADVERTISEMENT

Self-identified African-Americans turn out to derive, on average, about 80 percent of their genetic ancestry from enslaved Africans brought to America between the 16th and 19th centuries. My colleagues and I searched, in 1,597 African-American men with prostate cancer, for locations in the genome where the fraction of genes contributed by West African ancestors was larger than it was elsewhere in the genome. In 2006, we found exactly what we were looking for: a location in the genome with about 2.8 percent more African ancestry than the average.

When we looked in more detail, we found that this region contained at least seven independent risk factors for prostate cancer, all more common in West Africans. Our findings could fully account for the higher rate of prostate cancer in African-Americans than in European-Americans. We could conclude this because African-Americans who happen to have entirely European ancestry in this small section of their genomes had about the same risk for prostate cancer as random Europeans.

Did this research rely on terms like “African-American” and “European-American” that are socially constructed, and did it label segments of the genome as being probably “West African” or “European” in origin? Yes. Did this research identify real risk factors for disease that differ in frequency across those populations, leading to discoveries with the potential to improve health and save lives? Yes.

While most people will agree that finding a genetic explanation for an elevated rate of disease is important, they often draw the line there. Finding genetic influences on a propensity for disease is one thing, they argue, but looking for such influences on behavior and cognition is another.

ADVERTISEMENT

But whether we like it or not, that line has already been crossed. A recent study led by the economist Daniel Benjamin compiled information on the number of years of education from more than 400,000 people, almost all of whom were of European ancestry. After controlling for differences in socioeconomic background, he and his colleagues identified 74 genetic variations that are over-represented in genes known to be important in neurological development, each of which is incontrovertibly more common in Europeans with more years of education than in Europeans with fewer years of education.

It is not yet clear how these genetic variations operate. A follow-up study of Icelanders led by the geneticist Augustine Kong showed that these genetic variations also nudge people who carry them to delay having children. So these variations may be explaining longer times at school by affecting a behavior that has nothing to do with intelligence.

This study has been joined by others finding genetic predictors of behavior. One of these, led by the geneticist Danielle Posthuma, studied more than 70,000 people and found genetic variations in more than 20 genes that were predictive of performance on intelligence tests.

ADVERTISEMENT

Is performance on an intelligence test or the number of years of school a person attends shaped by the way a person is brought up? Of course. But does it measure something having to do with some aspect of behavior or cognition? Almost certainly. And since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations (because the frequencies of genetic variations are rarely exactly the same across populations), the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too.

You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work. Indeed, the study led by Dr. Kong showed that in Iceland, there has been measurable genetic selection against the genetic variations that predict more years of education in that population just within the last century.

To understand why it is so dangerous for geneticists and anthropologists to simply repeat the old consensus about human population differences, consider what kinds of voices are filling the void that our silence is creating. Nicholas Wade, a longtime science journalist for The New York Times, rightly notes in his 2014 book, “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History,” that modern research is challenging our thinking about the nature of human population differences. But he goes on to make the unfounded and irresponsible claim that this research is suggesting that genetic factors explain traditional stereotypes.

One of Mr. Wade’s key sources, for example, is the anthropologist Henry Harpending, who has asserted that people of sub-Saharan African ancestry have no propensity to work when they don’t have to because, he claims, they did not go through the type of natural selection for hard work in the last thousands of years that some Eurasians did. There is simply no scientific evidence to support this statement. Indeed, as 139 geneticists (including myself) pointed out in a letter to The New York Times about Mr. Wade’s book, there is no genetic evidence to back up any of the racist stereotypes he promotes.

ADVERTISEMENT

Another high-profile example is James Watson, the scientist who in 1953 co-discovered the structure of DNA, and who was forced to retire as head of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories in 2007 after he stated in an interview — without any scientific evidence — that research has suggested that genetic factors contribute to lower intelligence in Africans than in Europeans.

At a meeting a few years later, Dr. Watson said to me and my fellow geneticist Beth Shapiro something to the effect of “When are you guys going to figure out why it is that you Jews are so much smarter than everyone else?” He asserted that Jews were high achievers because of genetic advantages conferred by thousands of years of natural selection to be scholars, and that East Asian students tended to be conformist because of selection for conformity in ancient Chinese society. (Contacted recently, Dr. Watson denied having made these statements, maintaining that they do not represent his views; Dr. Shapiro said that her recollection matched mine.)

What makes Dr. Watson’s and Mr. Wade’s statements so insidious is that they start with the accurate observation that many academics are implausibly denying the possibility of average genetic differences among human populations, and then end with a claim — backed by no evidence — that they know what those differences are and that they correspond to racist stereotypes. They use the reluctance of the academic community to openly discuss these fraught issues to provide rhetorical cover for hateful ideas and old racist canards.

This is why knowledgeable scientists must speak out. If we abstain from laying out a rational framework for discussing differences among populations, we risk losing the trust of the public and we actively contribute to the distrust of expertise that is now so prevalent. We leave a vacuum that gets filled by pseudoscience, an outcome that is far worse than anything we could achieve by talking openly.

ADVERTISEMENT

If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong. For example, my laboratory discovered in 2016, based on our sequencing of ancient human genomes, that “whites” are not derived from a population that existed from time immemorial, as some people believe. Instead, “whites” represent a mixture of four ancient populations that lived 10,000 years ago and were each as different from one another as Europeans and East Asians are today.

So how should we prepare for the likelihood that in the coming years, genetic studies will show that many traits are influenced by genetic variations, and that these traits will differ on average across human populations? It will be impossible — indeed, anti-scientific, foolish and absurd — to deny those differences.

For me, a natural response to the challenge is to learn from the example of the biological differences that exist between males and females. The differences between the sexes are far more profound than those that exist among human populations, reflecting more than 100 million years of evolution and adaptation. Males and females differ by huge tracts of genetic material — a Y chromosome that males have and that females don’t, and a second X chromosome that females have and males don’t.

Most everyone accepts that the biological differences between males and females are profound. In addition to anatomical differences, men and women exhibit average differences in size and physical strength. (There are also average differences in temperament and behavior, though there are important unresolved questions about the extent to which these differences are influenced by social expectations and upbringing.)

ADVERTISEMENT

How do we accommodate the biological differences between men and women? I think the answer is obvious: We should both recognize that genetic differences between males and females exist and we should accord each sex the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of those differences.

It is clear from the inequities that persist between women and men in our society that fulfilling these aspirations in practice is a challenge. Yet conceptually it is straightforward. And if this is the case with men and women, then it is surely the case with whatever differences we may find among human populations, the great majority of which will be far less profound.

An abiding challenge for our civilization is to treat each human being as an individual and to empower all people, regardless of what hand they are dealt from the deck of life. Compared with the enormous differences that exist among individuals, differences among populations are on average many times smaller, so it should be only a modest challenge to accommodate a reality in which the average genetic contributions to human traits differ.

It is important to face whatever science will reveal without prejudging the outcome and with the confidence that we can be mature enough to handle any findings. Arguing that no substantial differences among human populations are possible will only invite the racist misuse of genetics that we wish to avoid.

David Reich is a professor of genetics at Harvard and the author of the forthcoming book “Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past,” from which this article is adapted.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

[sortingoutayoungcontrarian]

I recently typed the name Christopher Hitchens into the search bar on WordPress and was very disappointed with the top result. This result was an ignorant evaluation of who Christopher was as well an evaluation of his book “god is not Great. The author of this “evaluation” was clearly a fundamental Christian along with those who commented on the post thus far… Obviously, they hated Christopher and did their best to discredit everything about the man. I could not help but be a contrarian. I shall copy and paste the exchange below. I shall update per reply.

Me:

Hmm I wonder if you would find Hitchens’ points valid if they were made by a compilation of ancient misogynistic people who believed that genocide, dispossession of land, slavery, polyamorous incest, virgin-child-sacrifice-scapegoating, and baby genitalia mutilation was acceptable (all of these acts adamantly encouraged even), and then translated by a committee of megalomaniacs lead by a man who boiled his wife in a bathtub… All of whom believed the universe revolved around them in every sense the phrase entails and murdered those who said differently whilst claiming absolute morality. The reason why atheists do not mind that Hitchens may or may not have plagiarized is that they value what is true and don’t care how they get that truth. Christians, however, claim the bible to be the inerrant word of god despite its countless plagiarisms and contradictions.

If you could respond to those points which Hitchens made rather than the one he obviously did not care about (the validity of Jesus), then maybe your thoughts of critique would hold more water, maybe even have an atheist flicker with doubt . To be quiet honest, I have a very hard time believing you actually read any book by Hitchens’, due to the fact that his main focus was not to refute the overall accuracy of the bible but rather reveal the overall hypocrisy. You chose to give a general evaluation of a man by highlighting an argument he argued carelessly because there was no need at all to even argue it. Or maybe you were just scared to touch on the points he made that would open the eyes of any free thinking rational mind to see the lie they have succumbed to.

His response:

Your first paragraph has a large number of mischaracterizations similar to what is typical of Hitchens. You seem to have learned him well. Unfortunately, upon close examination, it is sophistry through and through, nothing but a hollow shell of an argument. In but one point: Flatly, circumcision is not mutilation, and to phrase it like you have is not making an argument, but merely using hollow emotional rhetoric. I gave cold explanation of a point, and you respond with emotionalism. This is typical of modern atheism, which Hitchens exemplifies. It always amazes me that atheists deal so much in emotionalism. Personally I prefer reason and logic.

Concerning what I have stated, I backed my claims. For example, see the first link in the post above. As to the Canaanites, I have responded to that as well.

Also please take note of my comment policy.

Me:

Thank you, I am proud to have learned Hitchens! I simply could not do nothing about such an inaccurate “evaluation” of a great man. As to baby genitalia mutilation, I was not making an argument but stating the fact of the matter, a beautiful baby is born and on the eighth day take a blade to its genitalia. There is nothing fallacious about that claim. If it is a semantical issue, the greek translation for “mutilate” is from a compound of kata and temno (to cut); a cutting down (off), i.e. Mutilation (ironically) — concision. The greek word used in the bible for mutilation is “katatomé” which translates– to cut. While circumcision is “peritomē” which translates — to cut around. Look for yourself, please. Studying in-depth interlinear commentaries in greek after graduating seminary school is what drove me away from the hypocrisy that is the church. I am not an atheist, as you assumed in your lazily mistaken attempt of ad hominem, but I merely saw the bible for what it was; a perfect business plan to enslave the people in a time where theocracy reigned. What sane person would not respond with emotionalism over this? If you apply James 2:24 to the role christianity has played throughout the narrative of history you will never again be amazed by the emotionalism that apparently surprises you in atheists however. It causes good people to do bad things, when one takes the focus off themselves and the box they locked themselves in due to fear of losing after-life insurance the bigger picture reveals itself. It is a lame excuse for wars birthed from an ancient inherited trait of tribalism.

You back your claims with a text you cannot prove. As to the Canaanites, I am always amazed by how christians separate real-life and their pretend world of faith as if in admittance to it not being real; Freudian slip esque. Like a child does when playing cops and robbers and their mom calls them inside for dinner and they have to break character in order to reply, “coming mom”. For example, I was stepping outside the realm of the bible and into empirical accounts in history books. who said I was talking about genocide mentioned in the bible only? I never brought up the Canaanites, you were mistakenly assuming (again) atop your omniscience tower. I was referring to, as Hitchens was, the rules for dispossession of land and the slavery of the previous land owners outlined in Leviticus 25, specifically verses 44-46. A lame excuse for justifying lust of what their neighbor has. Leviticus is the same book that outlines the pagan tradition of sacrificing life, (e)scapegoating responsibility. Chapter 25 in Leviticus was most cited chapter in the bible within memoirs of protestants during the establishing of the USA… and people wonder why black lives matter is heading a postmodernist movement.

You still avoided addressing the topic of (1) incest, (2) misogyny (which, unfortunately for all the women of the bible, in this context implies polygamy allowed for the man alone), and (3) The irrevocable evil, with a recorded historical background that goes back thousands of years before the bible linked to ancient savage polytheistic religions : scapegoating responsibility of sins through child sacrifice.

These were the main points of Hitchens, yes? I don’t think one could give a fair “General Evaluation of Christopher Hitchens” without addressing his main points. It seems as if you are trying to hide the reader from the points made by a man who had won countless debates with the leading apologists of all the major religions. A man who is now dead and unable to defend himself… If you could respond to those claims rather than attempting to define who I am or what I believe in then your critiques would be much more (logically/reasonably) respectable. I do apologize if I crossed a line defined in your comment policy. If you would prefer to reply privately I would still appreciate hearing your defense. Whether your audience hears you out or not is not upon my conscious. I would hope they follow you in order to hear the truth rather than feed confirmation bias. I have many issues with your past posts as well that I could refute using the bible, if you are interested. I am honestly just curious and value discussions from those that have come to opposing conclusion.

His Response:

As my comment policy states, this is not a discussion board and we do no go down endless rabbit trails here. Humoring you briefly is all I will do.

–You pointed out correctly that the Greek terms for cut around and cut off are two distinct terms. In no sense is circumcision mutilation. You agree the claim is incorrect. –As for horrible things like incest, the Bible accurately portrays history but does not condone these practices. It forbids incest and shows the folly of marrying many wives, for all who do so are shown to inherit the problems these practices create. –As to the Bible’s treatment of women, any claim that the Bible has a low view of women is completely false. –Child sacrifice was practiced by the Canaanites, which is one reason God commanded they be wiped out. Israel did what you and Hitchens seem to want them to do, which is not actually kill all the Canaanites. As I explained, this resulted in Israel starting these practices, which God stopped by sending Babylon to take Israel into captivity. Please portray the whole account or stop criticizing.

I did indeed deal with Hitchens in a fair manner. All signs point to Hitchens copying from earlier atheist writings, then not even doing the research to check out whether the claims were true. He spent the rest of his life traveling around repeating these claims with bluster, yet they are completely, entirely, totally untrue. His claims about virgin birth myths are completely false. Hitchens did not even do a magazine grade level of research on these items, yet repeated them for years.

The claims in this post stand.

Per my comment policy, we will stop here.

... And then he disabled the comments...

[thecoroutfitters]

Written by Wild Bill on The Prepper Journal.

Editors Note: This post might be better titled “ramblings from a mind turned to mush by our “information highway”. I had the luck to be on ARPANet before it was opened to the public in the great “explosion” of information (the “dis” being optional but applicable in the too many cases.) As people, and especially as Preppers we make decisions based on the facts we are presented and our interpretation of their accuracy, so this hits us at home every minute of every day.

I still tell a story I heard from a Civics Teacher in High School that goes like this – There was a horse race between a Russian horse and an American horse. The American horse won and the newspaper headline the following day at the New York Post read “American Horse WINS!” Pravda’s headline that same day read “Russian Horse Places Second, American Horse Finishes Next to Last!”  – both are factual, both tell the truth. (The story was told to me with the American newspaper being the New York Times but I just could not bring myself to type that. It was awhile ago, when reporting the news was their agenda and the means by which they promoted their circulation.)

I am sure you have also all read or been told the theorem that if you put enough monkeys at enough keyboards eventually they will turn out the….Bible, or The Works of Shakespeare, or some other great historical accomplishment. I contend that the “internet, information highway” has disproved that theory.

My notes on what to point out, just the notes, are about to exceed 2,000 words so I will just put a couple in here and save the others for another day.

My Top Two: The Media and History

The Media, the Fourth Estate.

“It used to be that the media was called “the Fourth Estate” to accentuate the freedom of the press, not to be confused with the term “fourth branch” which proposes that they are not free from the government. The press is called the fourth estate in the United States usually because they observe the political process.” No longer, they are the political process, I believe they own the DNC as opposed to the other way around, but that may be the mush I alluded to earlier.

I know I am speaking to a lot of like minded people on this matter and won’t bore you reaffirming things we all know about the quality, or rather, the utter lack of journalistic integrity in America from the Fourth Estate. What you may or may not know is that it singularly poisons the world. I make no secret that I have traveled the world, been to every US state but one (Iowa), have been to 6 continents (I can see penguins in zoos), dipped my toes in the five major Oceans (though they are really just one), been to 7 Muslim ruled countries and on and on AND their news sources about America, and Americans, are AP (Associated Press) and all the alphabets – CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and on and on as well a Reuters and all the others services.

Fox News and Breitbart and Drudge might as well not exist as they don’t really outside of North America and that isn’t 100% bad, I will expand on that in a little while. And yes, I know about Fox News Europe, and Breitbart Europe, but their market penetration in those markets is very low.

The media is a business and it sells content, period. It is just another channel on the TV or the internet trying to garner viewers to get improved Google Analytics to be used to sell advertising. Anyone who thinks that the Fourth Estate in America is doing it for any other reason is a candidate for, well, you fill in that sentence. Their are journalists with integrity, and a passion for what they do, I am sure, but if you want to succeed, you are an employee of the corporation and instructions come from the top like everywhere else. And there are shows hosted by people who care here and there, but it is still all show business and all about capturing advertising dollars. Am I cynical? Most likely but only from years of the droning, mock debates and the news outlets spinning news stories out of every current and over-the-hill celebrity’s tweets. Since I don’t spend a lot of time on the alphabets I will use Fox News and Breitbart as examples for this.

Any celebrity of any status in any industry is given the stage by them, their national pulpit as long as they can be quoted saying something that will infuriate their base, as determined by the Google Analytics they track and use as a determining factor in the generation of their SEO – Search Engine Optimization:

noun

COMPUTING

the process of maximizing the number of visitors to a particular website by ensuring that the site appears high on the list of results returned by a search engine.

“the key to getting more traffic lies in integrating content with search engine optimization and social media marketing”

This is taught at the college level, degrees in SEO are available from major universities across the country. In fairness I have taken college level courses in it to bolster my market penetration to reach more people. It is a normal business practice of all media outlets to have producers write incendiary comments on their posts on social media just to increase the number or responses they get as this too is a Google Analytics measure of success. When you see a post about say a successful NASA launch you can bet the comments on the post that go right to politics and attacks on politicians and have no relation to the subject matter are that producer looking to increase the number of replies to show that their content brought value to the business. It IS that crazy. It is spin in my opinion.

  Fox News just today put out posts from members of the ensemble casts of the TV shows Grey’s Anatomy and The Big Bang Theory as “news” because they sent out tweets against the NRA and against Conservative reporters in this weekends trending analysis. THIS is what is being spun as “news” and promoted as a “fair and balanced” alternative to the lock-step mindset of the mainstream’s slighted view. Just how does one fathom this as news in the first place, and, as an American, how does one defend this as the historians of our age, because that is how our history will be recorded. And to that point, I’ll go a little deeper.

When I was an avid skier I subscribed to the big industry magazines – Skiing, Downhill, Ski and on and on and like all sports they put out their “annual review of what’s new” for the coming season. For skiing this was an August release. None of the products reviewed were ever given any criticism as the advertising for that issue of the magazine and other issues as well, was from these same manufactures. The beginnings of my skepticism (Yes, I can be a slow learner.)

I could go on and on about this as I am sure we all could. My hope is that we never take things at face value, that we do our own due diligence, that we question even when we see something that “exactly” expresses what we were thinking. The enemy of my enemy is NOT necessarily my friend. Be open, but never accepting without your own due diligence.

History: What is No Longer Taught

I asked the question of a learned friend last week “Just how does one learn from the past when they are never taught the past?” The measure of an education after all is that you acquire some idea of the extent of your ignorance. By this measure our education system is excellent.

The teaching of History at every level of the American Education System now leaves a lot to be desired. I apologize to that singular history teacher that is out there a voice in the wilderness, they do exist and we should exalt those that do and try. When my two children were in high school “history” was the assistant football coach showing PBS reenactment movies of historical events and people. I almost got arrested for my reaction to this, more correctly my reaction to the stonewalling and apathy I got when I tried to change this. I lobbied in vain through the PTA and directly to the district. At the time I was a single father with two kids in high school and did not have the financial means to put them in private school, but had the sense to know when they were being severely limited in their ability to compete for college with peers who were receiving a well rounded education. In hind sight at least there weren’t taught from the viewpoint that our founding fathers were rich white elitist slave-owning murderers, that came after.

Today I come across people almost daily who look at me like “who?” when I mention some historical figure and then they go right to their smart phones and Google the information, getting those same impeachable media sources I ranted about above. My laptop has the words “Who is John Galt?” on it’s top and whenever I bring it to a meeting I can see the strangers in the room googling John Galt.

I was a scientist, I have the periodic table app on my iPad called “The Elements” which was done by Theodore Gray. The graphics are amazing. Click on “U Uranium 92” and arrow to the description and here is the first sentence “It is impossible to discuss uranium without acknowledging that the first atomic weapon used in anger was a uranium fission bomb, built in secret lab deep in the deserts of New Mexico and detonated over the unsuspecting city of Hiroshima on the Honshu island of Japan.”  While it certainly is possible to discuss this element, in the same context as all the others are discussed as opposed to the author’s revisionist view of historical events, it is of interest that there are blatant errors in this first sentence alone – there was a warning, it was ignored by the Imperial Japanese Command, just when was the first atomic weapon NOT used in anger used, Los Alamos is on a mountain top in north west New Mexico, I have property near there. BTW it has one of the most interesting interactive museums you will ever visit in the town itself. I have skied Pajarito Ski Area while visiting, it is managed by the labs, both my late wife and I did business with the labs which are still owned by the University of California. And following the first sentence you get 7 more paragraphs so laced with opinion and incorrect “facts” that no one could really learn much from this other than mankind is evil. This is just one obscure writing in a iPad app that probably isn’t on a lot of devices. But it is published as the truth. I almost suspect I will find Bitcoin mentioned in the description on Au Gold 79.

We have all seen example of how revisionist history is being taught, I can only imagine what it must be like to have kids in school today and seeing what they are taught, what homework assignments they are bringing home. Weekly we can read about yet another classic piece of literature “being dropped because it is offensive or non-inclusive.” Again, I don’t want this to be an indictment of teachers as there are great ones out there.

In my opinion the REAL power in America is wielded by educators. Period. They create and control everything your child sees, hears and reads in school and are only aided by the Fourth Estate which controls everything else they see, hear or read. Parents have been reduced to the lone voice in the wilderness. Once they enter the education system the education system gets the majority of their waking hours. In order to compete they must conform. If they question they may be subjected to ridicule, or worse. Most major school districts have an almost 1:1 ratio of administrator to classroom teacher.

My point is again, “Just how does one learn from the past when they are never taught the past?”

Sometime my rants run away with me….I look forward to your comments.

Follow The Prepper Journal on Facebook!

          The post Things That Drive Preppers Crazy appeared first on The Prepper Journal.

from The Prepper Journal Don't forget to visit the store and pick up some gear at The COR Outfitters. How prepared are you for emergencies? #SurvivalFirestarter #SurvivalBugOutBackpack #PrepperSurvivalPack #SHTFGear #SHTFBag