#and to american film makers: henry clinton was technically a new yorker so give me the sir henry multiseason series i crave

[acrossthewavesoftime]

And sadly, this is an ongoing issue in historical fiction, many years after The Patriot. TURN: Washington's Spies, which is a great deal more recet, did the same thing with their depiction of General Sir Henry Clinton.

An solidly middle-aged man in uniform, there was apparently not much room to make him look what to some 21st century eyes might pass as "effeminate", so he receives an implied affair with the fashion-conscious hairdresser of Margaret Shippen and friends, Freddie.

I think I need not elaborate on why that doesn't sit right with me, even more so because the historical Clinton was nothing like this gregarious, unashamedly gay (both for handsome hairdressers and in the old-fashioned sense of the word) on-screen portrayal who occasionally oversees a British defeat in a badly-staged battle from afar; historically, the man had a spotless prior military record from the 7 Years' War, 11 biological children by 3 women (not counting his de facto adoptive son John), because of whom he repeatedly threatened to desert as he was homesick for them, and had difficulties socialising with others to the point he described himself as a "shy bitch" in his diary.

None of this information is particularly hard to find; Clinton has a thorough, if somewhat old, biography to his name that can be accessed digitally, and free of chage via archive.org.

As a non-American consuming American media set in this period, what irks me most is that the tactic of using these harmful stereotypes of the "effeminate" or even outright gay man as shorthand for lacking in moral values, strength and cleverness on the battlefield, persists, both because, to repeat myself here, these stereotypes are harmful and indicative of issues our modern-day society has with its image of men and masculinity, and because it's narratively unappealing.

"The bad guys are the bad guys because they shave and use perfume, and maybe also kiss other men!!1!!!" Just isn't a convincing antagonist or villain backstory for me. As an addition to this, yes to OP's point that this way of treating male characters also shines a light on modern-day misogyny.

Furthermore, it justs shows the need of US filmmakers to 'justify' the actions of the same set of male historical figures who verifiably weren't that great as people (or larger-than-life flawless altruistic freedom fighters) after all (think e. g. of slavery, to name but one important point here). Setting a British antagonist whose character is compelling while also displaying posittive traits against Washington and co., one might run the risk of 'devaluing' the Founding Fathers by setting up a character who would make for an equally appealing alternative to them.

TURN tried to work more into that direction with the sympathetic and kind British Major Edmund Hewlett, but failed by making him a) somewhat incompetent in military matters (as compared of course to Patriot characters of a similar rank) and b) a decidedly fictional character, when a great deal of his personality traits were actually lifted from the real life Lieutenant-Colonel John Graves Simcoe, whose name then in turn (hah) gets slapped on a comedically evil, and entirely fictional British arch-villain-type whose main goal in life is to be evil and sadistic, just because he can.

Ideally, filmmakers would at last be courageous and attempt more nuanced displays of the Revolutionary War, bidding adieu to the old "Good Guys vs. Bad Guys" narrative and attempt a more nuanced portrayal of the period and its people, who were no more than that; people. People who, as we all are, were not without fault and had their own reasons to participate; some out of ideological conviction, others for some sort of personal gain, and yet others because being the son of a second son and yet expected to keep up a certain living standard is hard, so you need to take up a job and make money somehow in order to raise your kids with the financial security you never had at their age because your own parents weren't exactly competent keeping the family money together; but the crucial thing is, all of these kinds of people existed, and existed on both sides. Nuance matters.

all the ladies love that I have so many thoughts on the vilification of male effeminacy in popular thought about the American Revolution

it's soooo sexy that those thoughts are half-formed because my research specialty is actually 19th-century social history (with focuses on women's, queer, and dress history)

I'm actually very hot for doing all of this, in fact