#eastern european national dress

[easterneuropeancrafts]

Girl from Veľký Lom. Karel Plicka. Slovakia. 1928. Slovenská národná galéria, SNG

[sonyaheaneyauthor]

Postcard of a Ukrainian woman. Pre-1917.

[little-apricot-orchard]

"palestine was never a country in the first place!"

really?

explain my dad's PALESTINIAN birth certificate.

explain my dad and his parents PALESTINIAN passports.

explain why my grandparents still have PALESTINIAN currency, issued in the 1920s and 30s.

explain our name on the maps. explain our textile fame. explain our influence on european and middle eastern fashion for centuries.

explain our customs, our nations dress, fabrics, foods, dances, beliefs.

explain our caananite ancestry, how the land of caanan was called palestina by the ancient romans, that caanan, palestine, and judea were the names of the same country, just by other people.

[dresshistorynerd]

https://www.tumblr.com/thebaconsandwichofregret/189924928150/comepraisetheinfanta-thebaconsandwichofregret

whenever i see people rbing the op without the additions i die a little inside so i thought you should have a go at debunking it 🫠

So these are the tweets from the post. I had blissfully not come across it before. This is one of the weirdest takes I have ever seen. It's amazing to see these fashion history takes that are so boldly and confidently wrong and inaccurate.

It's honestly hilariously ignorant to think that a massive cultural and societal shift that took couple of centuries was all because of one guy. It's so reductive and even goes to the great man territory to pick one person to blame for something like this that really had much more broad and complex reasons than "a guy did it". It's stressed in this tread that Beau Brummell was not noble or gentry and "just some guy", so how would he single-handedly change the fashions and concept of masculinity of the whole western world? He was a London socialite, it's not like most of his contemporaries in continental Europe knew about him. Like maybe the French, but does anyone really believe people in Eastern-Europe or Nordic countries or the Mediterranean knew about? Not to mention places like US. Yet everyone dressed like that in his lifetime, so how could his influence reach so far so quickly? Not even kings and queens could so directly and massively shift the fashions. So in the face of it the whole claim is ridiculous, but it's also full of inaccuracies.

The shift from Rococo fashion to regency fashion was extremely stark and quick in both men and women's fashion, but it happened during 1780s and 1790s, before Beau Brummell became a well known figure in the London society (he was born in 1778 and became well-known in the society after his military career, during which he befriended the Prince of Wales, around the end of 1790s). Here's first an example from 1780s and then from 1793-94 and 1797.

The one from 1780s still has some Rococo elements like the wig, but it's already much more toned down and the coat is already turning from frock coat to a tail coat. It's an example of the more casual men's countryside dress from the period. The court dress was still quite elaborate, though also toned down from the 1770s. But there's a big shift when it comes to the examples from 1790s. They are unmistakably Regency fashion. All of these example are French too. I'm sure these people had no idea and gained no influence from an unknown middle class English officer. So what did actually happen? Well, I'm pretty sure the French Revolution in 1789 had a little bigger impact on the European society and fashion than Beau Brummell.

I'm not going to go too deep into this, since I'm working on an in depth post about the masculinity and fashion in the modern era and I go into detail about how the French Revolution had a massive part in shaping them. But the short version is that the French revolutionaries rejected the elaborate fashions of the Rococo French nobility (in both men and women's fashion) as those over the top fashions stood as symbols of the excess wealth of the nobility and the extreme wealth gap. This is also why the high fashion was getting toned down thorough the 1780s before the Revolution. The anger towards the ruling class was mounting at the time and it encouraged the nobility to try to act a little more palatable in their aesthetics to maybe appease the angry people without doing any actual change to address the wealth gap and the centralization of power.

The revolutionaries looked for ideal masculinity and femininity elsewhere then. To contrast themselves against the ruling class, they looked to the antiquity and it's simplicity as well as the peasantry and the country gentleman fashion. Romanticism was the driving force behind the artistic expression of the Revolution. It weaved nationalism to the class struggle that was at the core of the revolutionary movement. So the Revolution was not just the working class and peasantry against the ruling class, but the French People against the nobility. That's how the bourgeois was able to align themselves with the working class and peasants. This is when physical labour, militarism, dominance and leadership really became intrinsically attached to masculinity, as the ideal man of the revolutionaries was a working peasant, who with military might took the the power back to the people from the nobility. The democracy would not last long, but it's not a mistake that only men could vote under the new democracy after the Revolution was won. It's also not a mistake that even when the post-Revolution France eventually abolished slavery (but not without some push-back first and a couple of slave revolts to force their hands) they didn't give most people of color rights to vote. Since colonialism whiteness had become intrinsic part of masculinity and femininity to dehumanize everyone else, and the new form of masculinity and femininity born out of the Revolution did not contest that. In fact the Enlightenment philosophy that had laid the ground work for the Revolution and the Romantic movement and it's nationalism that were driving force in it, in no way contested colonialism or it's white supremacy. In fact Enlightenment aimed to rationalize those things. Which is why the power in the new democracy went to the (mostly) white men.

These elements were in the new men's fashion too. Nationalism, the idealization of militarism, romanticization of peasantry and antiquity were basis of the fashion. Because antiquity was seen as the origins of democracy and the so called Western Civilization, that made it, and especially Antique Rome with it's militaristic connotations, perfect inspiration for the Revolutionary France. The short hairstyle was inspired from the Roman fashion seen in statues. The fashionable tail coat was influenced by military uniforms and the short jackets of the working class. The long trousers also came from working class dress. Here's examples of the revolutionary fashion of commoners, first from 1792 and then around 1790.

To be very clear, the revolutionaries were not a single entity with single ideology. They were collection of movements, who were united in their shared desire to overthrow the ruling class and establish some sort of democracy. But inside the movement were much more radical factions than what eventually ended in power after the French nobility. Socialists, abolitionists, feminists, slaves and others also fought for the Revolution and there was a lot of internal struggle too. Romantic movement was also very varied and contained extremely nationalistic elements as well as outright socialist elements.

It's important to note that the 18th century Rococo fashion was never as extreme elsewhere in the world as it was in France, so the change from Rococo to Regency style wasn't as stark elsewhere. If you put the most elaborate French court fashions of mid 1700s and Beau Brummell's style next to each other the difference is certainly massive, but fashion for men as well as women was through 18th century much more restrained and somber in England. Here's an English example from 1755-65 and for comparison a French example from 1755.

In fact as the tensions were rising in France the upper class begun to adopt the more toned down English styles. After the Revolution the new Republican styles would spread to Britain too. In Britain though Romanticism had a more pronounced effect as it stayed firmly monarchist. Therefore the English fashion was especially influenced by the styles worn by country side gentlemen.

There's another claim in the thread that fully fails to understand the broad implications of fashion and societal gender and how these things change and evolve. It's the claim that Beau Brummell created the modern men's suit and he's the reason the suit has long trousers. We already went through how long trousers initially got into men's fashion and it was not him. But the writer is not wrong in saying that Beau Brummell's outfit in this picture is a direct ancestor of modern men's suit. It is.

But you know what else is a direct ancestor of men's suit? This.

The modern three piece suit has it roots as far as in late 17th century. Before suit men wore doublets, hose and jerkins, where the sleeveless piece, jerkin, was on top of doublet. Aside from hose, these were also items women used and the fashions for men and women resembled in style and construction each other much closer than after the suit took over (as seen in these examples from 1630s). However the distinction between men and women's fashion had started to grow much earlier. A big shift that happened during the 16th century was that men stopped wearing skirts. Men and women wore the same garments for centuries before that. The styles and silhouettes for men and women had some differences (the skirts were often shorter for men for example) but they were parallel to each other. I wrote a whole very long post about how skirts stopped being acceptable for men. In it I write about how the shift in men's fashion was part of the large shift from feudalism to colonialism and capitalism, that needed a new hierarchy to justify the new system after the previous divinely justified feudal hierarchy was no longer an option. The new hierarchy was white supremacist patriarchy and therefore needed a clearer distinction between white men and white woman, that would also help distinct white people from the racialized people.

But such fundamental changes in the societal structure and culture are long processes. The process was continuing in the latter half of the 17th century, when Orientalism first became very popular. Orientalism is the dehumanization and fetishization of Asia and North-Africa, and it was born as the European colonial project was properly getting going in Asia. Colonialism in Asia and North-Africa took a little different form. I suspect it was because it was not that long ago, when Europeans had felt inferior to many of the peoples and empires in Asia and North-Africa, which they had always had much closer relationships with than the rest of Africa and certainly the Americas. I think that's why Orientalism is such a mix of coveting Asian and North-African cultures and bodies in a very fetishistic ways, while also demeaning and diminishing them. Nevertheless, Orientalism had a huge impact on European fashion in late 17th century. Both the way men and women's clothing was made after that to this day was strongly impacted by Orientalism. The coat and waistcoat combination was an adaptation of Turkish fashion. The three piece suit became popular in 1670s and fully took over men's fashion in 1680s (an example from 1687). The cravat was also adopted around the same time to men's wear from a light cavalry mercenary army in the Habsburgian Empire known as the Croats or Cravats. They were mainly Croatian, which to Western European was almost "Oriental" due to their proximity to Asia and Turkey in particular, and therefore the popularization of cravats as a fashion item was also influenced by Orientalism. Orientalist fashion encompasses the paradoxical nature of Orientalism itself; the Europeans coveted "the Orient" so they bastardized their fashions to construct a gender binary that left out the people who originated those fashions.

The Regency three piece suit also has all the same elements as the suit 150 years earlier, the individual pieces had just evolved into different cuts and silhouettes. The construction and the basic elements have stayed pretty similar to this day.

My point is not to in any way deny Beau Brummell's influence on Regency fashion. He was the most influential fashion icon for men in his era after all. I hope this just made it very clear that these bigger changes are not about individual people but much larger shifts and movements in society and culture. His actual influence was popularizing some of the English countryside styles, that were already part of casual fashion, as more formal fashion in the London high society, making extremely elaborate cravats into the fashionable items of the day and becoming the image of the English dandy.

The picture of him above shows him the typical English countryside suit with dark blue tail coat, white cravat and light pantaloons with polished hessian boots. He helped to make the outfit and pantaloons in general fashionable. Breeches would stay as the formal leg wear for some a decade still, till young fashionable men would start to use black or gray pantaloons in formal events too. Pantaloons, which originated from military wear, were very fitted, basically similarly constructed as breaches but long. The trousers, which were looser than pantaloons, had their moment in France during the Revolution, but because of their Revolutionary and working class association, they didn't at first pick up in the high society, especially in Britain, until 1810s. They stayed as casual fashion through the Regency Era and only started gaining formal status in 1820s and 1830s. Beau Brummell is credited for inventing or at least popularizing trousers that have strap to go under the foot in order to keep them straight. Here's first a painting from of a gentleman in a very country style emphasized by the setting. Then a illustration from 1810 of a full formal dress with breeches and a fashion plate from 1817 of day wear with trousers.

The thread also misses what dandy really was. Dandy was the embodiment of the middle class social mobility of the modern era. He was the "self-made man", the fashionable middle class and the new celebrity of a post-feudal era. He dressed in refined fashionable countryside middle class clothing and was celebrated for his style and refinement, not for his birth. Ironically though, there was a distinct reactionary quality to the Regency dandy. After all dandy did not embody social equality, but mobility. He was the ideal man of the capitalist hierarchy. A bit of dilemma for the dandy was that being extremely fashionable was central to the dandy, but after the French revolution being too fashionable and too concerned about looks had been associated with the aristocracy and was now therefore unmanly. Which is why dandy quickly came to be seen as effeminate. There is a lot of satiric cartoons from the time period that make fun of dandies and their preoccupation with fashion and looks. Here's couple from around 1810s.

In conclusion it's pretty ridiculous to say modern men's fashion was all created by one guy. The real reason why men's formal suit (and to be clear more colorful and elaborate styles have come and gone from men's informal fashion during that time) has been what it is for more than hundred years is because much bigger changes, like capitalism, colonialism, Orientalism and white supremacist patriarchy.

[gothhabiba]

As the waves of Jewish immigration intensified and the desire (overt or covert) to become a replacement to the Arab-Palestinian people increased, the Zionist leadership advocated a policy of separation on all social, political and economic fronts. One of the most visible manifestations of this separation was the Zionist campaign for the purchasing of Jewish only goods, known in Hebrew as Totzeret Ha’aretz—literally “the produce of the land.” This resulted in a clear differentiation between the permeation of Arab-Palestinian culture into Jewish life and the barriers placed on social, economic and political integration and interaction. In the words of Zerubavel, “politically, the Zionists ignored the Arabs, but culturally, they romanticized and tried to imitate them.”

For example, Dafna Hirsch, in her biographic study of hummus, describes how it was initially considered part of the local Arab-Palestinian food culture and repertoire in the 1930s, worthy of adoption due to its nutritious value. However, in the 1950s, through the process of industrialisation, mass production and marketing, it was appropriated and nationalised, and its Arab origins were supressed. The Arab-Palestinian origins of the product were omitted and marginalized and its connection to Jewish and Jewish-Israeli traditions, especially to the Mizrahi-Jewish Diaspora, emphasized. For Jewish-Israelis, hummus became a national dish, the eating of which was part-and-parcel of daily life, either purchased from Jewish-Israeli food companies, such as Telma, or consumed at home or at Mizrahi-Jewish restaurants.

The hummus example in this regard is not unique; I will demonstrate these processes by deconstructing one of Israel’s most well known dishes, the Israeli salad. There might not be a more popular dish in Israel than the Israeli salad, sometimes also referred to as Salad Katsuts (chopped salad). The salad is based on chopped vegetables (normally tomatoes, cucumbers and onions) and fresh herbs (mostly parsley but sometimes also mint) and dressed with olive oil and lemon juice. A recent book, Fresh Flavours from Israel, by Jewish-Israelii food writer Janna Gur, states that “Israelis must have their salad at least once a day.” It is an accompaniment to every meal, whether eaten at home or outside. In fact, you would be hard pressed to have a meal anywhere in Israel without it. No Israeli cookbook from the 1960s onwards is truly complete without providing a recipe for it. This is true with regards to those written for Jewish-Israeli and foreign audiences. To the unsuspecting viewer, the Israeli salad is the epitome of Israeli food culture: it is fresh, simple, healthy and [symbolizes] the strong relationship the nation has with its agricultural produce. The salad, therefore, serves as both an internal and an external banal symbol of Jewish-Israeli identity.

What are the origins of the Israeli salad? Reading through literary accounts of growing up in Israel, the salad became a staple food product in the Kibbutzim canteens, from there it moved to the Israeli army’s mess halls and to Israeli homes. The fact that the salad is mentioned mostly as a chopped vegetable salad by Israeli authors describing living in Israel in the 1930s and 1940s demonstrates that it did not arrive with the wave of Jewish immigrants from North Africa and the Arab world after the state was established in 1948. It was also not prevalent in the diet of Central and Eastern European Jewish communities, from where most immigrants came. On the other hand, there are a number of accounts, mostly by travel writers, such as Masterman and Grant in the early-1900s and that of the Mary Eliza Rogers as far back as 1865, that describe the preparation and consumption of a chopped vegetable salad in Palestine. Rogers describes the salad as accompanying most meals served by the upper and governing classes in Palestine, at the time part of the Ottoman Empire. In other words, it is either that early Zionist immigrants to Palestine independently invented the salad, or, as I argue hereafter, they imitated, adopted and later appropriated and nationalised an existing local custom.

– Ronald Ranta, “Re-Arabizing Israeli Food Culture.” Food, Culture & Society 18(4):611-627 (December 2015). DOI: 10.1080/15528014.2015.1088192

[roobiedo]

Happy Pride Month and (very belated) Solarpunk Aesthetic Week! I wanted to redesign my longtime OCs, so I decided to give them a thematic twist!

Self-indulgent details about their designs under the cut:

⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻

From left to right:

Mia Based on the romantic/cottagecore style, and incorporating aspects of Eastern/Central European folk dresses, such as the Czech kroj. Her vest is made from recycled overalls and excess fabric from her apron. Her natural motif is fungi -- her bow and earrings are amanita mushrooms (if you squint, her skirt looks like one too), and the frills on her collar + sleeves are chanterelles!

Clyde He's a bohemian kinda guy, so I kept his silhouette relaxed and unstructured + harem pants + accessories. The exception is his jacket, a union of 3 different garments made to loosely resemble traditional Indian clothing like the achkan. His natural motif is the sun - hence the warm tones, which is contrasted with splashes of teal, the colour of his aura (its a fictional superpower thing).

Glace His style is more preppy/academia - turtlenecks and sweaters are his type, so I gave him 3! Sewn together in a visible mending-esque style (inspired by tumblr solarpunks and their fashion projects)! His palette is taken from the mlm flag, and there's subtle elements of a Korean hanbok - his collar, sleeve shape, sash and tassel. Rips in his pants are covered by cloud patches (his motif), all dyed to match the aesthetic!

Simmer Her thing is streetwear with a cultural twist - her top combines a bomber jacket and a Chinese qipao/cheongsam. Her detachable sleeves are extended via sewn-on zippers (useful as her powers generate a lot of heat)! Her motif is the phoenix, with patterns on her shirt and collar, hand-decorated using the batik method. Her hair streaks are inspired by stripes on a tiger - Malaysia's national animal.

Axis She's all about the y2k aesthetic, with translucent tights and a hoodie stylishly revamped to form a super crop top + a figure-hugging bodysuit. Her design is inspired by indigenous Andean fashion, such as the Ecuadorian pollera, which her skirt might be repurposed from. Her motif is butterflies, as seen in her earrings, the shape of her bodysuit, and the wing-like curves of her skirt.

Piper Initially wanted a punk-ish vibe for him but he might be a bit too cute now oops! His jacket is a mashup of 3 different pieces, and his jeans are a patchwork of denim. He's got iconic looks from French fashion (beret and scarf), as well as some African designs (the vertical pattern I referenced looked like plant cells, but also like binary code? I thought it was so on theme)! His motif is obviously plants of all types!

⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻

Thank you for checking this out (especially if you got this far)!!! ♡♡♡

[mariacallous]

In February 1994, in the grand ballroom of the town hall in Hamburg, Germany, the president of Estonia gave a remarkable speech. Standing before an audience in evening dress, Lennart Meri praised the values of the democratic world that Estonia then aspired to join. “The freedom of every individual, the freedom of the economy and trade, as well as the freedom of the mind, of culture and science, are inseparably interconnected,” he told the burghers of Hamburg. “They form the prerequisite of a viable democracy.” His country, having regained its independence from the Soviet Union three years earlier, believed in these values: “The Estonian people never abandoned their faith in this freedom during the decades of totalitarian oppression.”

But Meri had also come to deliver a warning: Freedom in Estonia, and in Europe, could soon be under threat. Russian President Boris Yeltsin and the circles around him were returning to the language of imperialism, speaking of Russia as primus inter pares—the first among equals—in the former Soviet empire. In 1994, Moscow was already seething with the language of resentment, aggression, and imperial nostalgia; the Russian state was developing an illiberal vision of the world, and even then was preparing to enforce it. Meri called on the democratic world to push back: The West should “make it emphatically clear to the Russian leadership that another imperialist expansion will not stand a chance.”

At that, the deputy mayor of St. Petersburg, Vladimir Putin, got up and walked out of the hall.

Meri’s fears were at that time shared in all of the formerly captive nations of Central and Eastern Europe, and they were strong enough to persuade governments in Estonia, Poland, and elsewhere to campaign for admission to NATO. They succeeded because nobody in Washington, London, or Berlin believed that the new members mattered. The Soviet Union was gone, the deputy mayor of St. Petersburg was not an important person, and Estonia would never need to be defended. That was why neither Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush made much attempt to arm or reinforce the new NATO members. Only in 2014 did the Obama administration finally place a small number of American troops in the region, largely in an effort to reassure allies after the first Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Nobody else anywhere in the Western world felt any threat at all. For 30 years, Western oil and gas companies piled into Russia, partnering with Russian oligarchs who had openly stolen the assets they controlled. Western financial institutions did lucrative business in Russia too, setting up systems to allow those same Russian kleptocrats to export their stolen money and keep it parked, anonymously, in Western property and banks. We convinced ourselves that there was no harm in enriching dictators and their cronies. Trade, we imagined, would transform our trading partners. Wealth would bring liberalism. Capitalism would bring democracy—and democracy would bring peace.

After all, it had happened before. Following the cataclysm of 1939–45, Europeans had indeed collectively abandoned wars of imperial, territorial conquest. They stopped dreaming of eliminating one another. Instead, the continent that had been the source of the two worst wars the world had ever known created the European Union, an organization designed to find negotiated solutions to conflicts and promote cooperation, commerce, and trade. Because of Europe’s metamorphosis—and especially because of the extraordinary transformation of Germany from a Nazi dictatorship into the engine of the continent’s integration and prosperity—Europeans and Americans alike believed that they had created a set of rules that would preserve peace not only on their own continents, but eventually in the whole world.

This liberal world order relied on the mantra of “Never again.” Never again would there be genocide. Never again would large nations erase smaller nations from the map. Never again would we be taken in by dictators who used the language of mass murder. At least in Europe, we would know how to react when we heard it.

But while we were happily living under the illusion that “Never again” meant something real, the leaders of Russia, owners of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, were reconstructing an army and a propaganda machine designed to facilitate mass murder, as well as a mafia state controlled by a tiny number of men and bearing no resemblance to Western capitalism. For a long time—too long—the custodians of the liberal world order refused to understand these changes. They looked away when Russia “pacified” Chechnya by murdering tens of thousands of people. When Russia bombed schools and hospitals in Syria, Western leaders decided that that wasn’t their problem. When Russia invaded Ukraine the first time, they found reasons not to worry. Surely Putin would be satisfied by the annexation of Crimea. When Russia invaded Ukraine the second time, occupying part of the Donbas, they were sure he would be sensible enough to stop.

Even when the Russians, having grown rich on the kleptocracy we facilitated, bought Western politicians, funded far-right extremist movements, and ran disinformation campaigns during American and European democratic elections, the leaders of America and Europe still refused to take them seriously. It was just some posts on Facebook; so what? We didn’t believe that we were at war with Russia. We believed, instead, that we were safe and free, protected by treaties, by border guarantees, and by the norms and rules of the liberal world order.

With the third, more brutal invasion of Ukraine, the vacuity of those beliefs was revealed. The Russian president openly denied the existence of a legitimate Ukrainian state: “Russians and Ukrainians,” he said, “were one people—a single whole.” His army targeted civilians, hospitals, and schools. His policies aimed to create refugees so as to destabilize Western Europe. “Never again” was exposed as an empty slogan while a genocidal plan took shape in front of our eyes, right along the European Union’s eastern border. Other autocracies watched to see what we would do about it, for Russia is not the only nation in the world that covets its neighbors’ territory, that seeks to destroy entire populations, that has no qualms about the use of mass violence. North Korea can attack South Korea at any time, and has nuclear weapons that can hit Japan. China seeks to eliminate the Uyghurs as a distinct ethnic group, and has imperial designs on Taiwan.

We can’t turn the clock back to 1994, to see what would have happened had we heeded Lennart Meri’s warning. But we can face the future with honesty. We can name the challenges and prepare to meet them.

There is no natural liberal world order, and there are no rules without someone to enforce them. Unless democracies defend themselves together, the forces of autocracy will destroy them. I am using the word forces, in the plural, deliberately. Many American politicians would understandably prefer to focus on the long-term competition with China. But as long as Russia is ruled by Putin, then Russia is at war with us too. So are Belarus, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Nicaragua, Hungary, and potentially many others. We might not want to compete with them, or even care very much about them. But they care about us. They understand that the language of democracy, anti-corruption, and justice is dangerous to their form of autocratic power—and they know that that language originates in the democratic world, our world.

This fight is not theoretical. It requires armies, strategies, weapons, and long-term plans. It requires much closer allied cooperation, not only in Europe but in the Pacific, Africa, and Latin America. NATO can no longer operate as if it might someday be required to defend itself; it needs to start operating as it did during the Cold War, on the assumption that an invasion could happen at any time. Germany’s decision to raise defense spending by 100 billion euros is a good start; so is Denmark’s declaration that it too will boost defense spending. But deeper military and intelligence coordination might require new institutions—perhaps a voluntary European Legion, connected to the European Union, or a Baltic alliance that includes Sweden and Finland—and different thinking about where and how we invest in European and Pacific defense.

If we don’t have any means to deliver our messages to the autocratic world, then no one will hear them. Much as we assembled the Department of Homeland Security out of disparate agencies after 9/11, we now need to pull together the disparate parts of the U.S. government that think about communication, not to do propaganda but to reach more people around the world with better information and to stop autocracies from distorting that knowledge. Why haven’t we built a Russian-language television station to compete with Putin’s propaganda? Why can’t we produce more programming in Mandarin—or Uyghur? Our foreign-language broadcasters—Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Martí in Cuba—need not only money for programming but a major investment in research. We know very little about Russian audiences—what they read, what they might be eager to learn.

Funding for education and culture needs rethinking too. Shouldn’t there be a Russian-language university, in Vilnius or Warsaw, to house all the intellectuals and thinkers who have just left Moscow? Don’t we need to spend more on education in Arabic, Hindi, Persian? So much of what passes for cultural diplomacy runs on autopilot. Programs should be recast for a different era, one in which, though the world is more knowable than ever before, dictatorships seek to hide that knowledge from their citizens.

Trading with autocrats promotes autocracy, not democracy. Congress has made some progress in recent months in the fight against global kleptocracy, and the Biden administration was right to put the fight against corruption at the heart of its political strategy. But we can go much further, because there is no reason for any company, property, or trust ever to be held anonymously. Every U.S. state, and every democratic country, should immediately make all ownership transparent. Tax havens should be illegal. The only people who need to keep their houses, businesses, and income secret are crooks and tax cheats.

We need a dramatic and profound shift in our energy consumption, and not only because of climate change. The billions of dollars we have sent to Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia have promoted some of the worst and most corrupt dictators in the world. The transition from oil and gas to other energy sources needs to happen with far greater speed and decisiveness. Every dollar spent on Russian oil helps fund the artillery that fires on Ukrainian civilians.

Take democracy seriously. Teach it, debate it, improve it, defend it. Maybe there is no natural liberal world order, but there are liberal societies, open and free countries that offer a better chance for people to live useful lives than closed dictatorships do. They are hardly perfect; our own has deep flaws, profound divisions, terrible historical scars. But that’s all the more reason to defend and protect them. Few of them have existed across human history; many have existed for a time and then failed. They can be destroyed from the outside, but from the inside, too, by divisions and demagogues.

Perhaps, in the aftermath of this crisis, we can learn something from the Ukrainians. For decades now, we’ve been fighting a culture war between liberal values on the one hand and muscular forms of patriotism on the other. The Ukrainians are showing us a way to have both. As soon as the attacks began, they overcame their many political divisions, which are no less bitter than ours, and they picked up weapons to fight for their sovereignty and their democracy. They demonstrated that it is possible to be a patriot and a believer in an open society, that a democracy can be stronger and fiercer than its opponents. Precisely because there is no liberal world order, no norms and no rules, we must fight ferociously for the values and the hopes of liberalism if we want our open societies to continue to exist.

[phykios]

do you have hcs of percabeth and fam doing things that are culturally greek but arent part of tHe aMeRcIcAn pErCePtIoN Of gReEkNeSs like food music dress social norms etc? or of things they do when they visit the old country?

anon i'm so sorry about the can of worms you've just opened but this is literally the backdrop of my dissertation so

the "american perception" (/western/european perception) of greece is (currently, anyway) closely associated with what we think of ancient greece (largely ancient athens, sometimes ancient sparta, occasionally ancient crete), but the Greek cultural perception of greece is, on the whole, extremely orthodox christian, specifically in opposition to both a) catholicism and b) islam, specifically in the ottoman empire. in the nineteenth century there was a MASSIVE political and cultural debate in the new nation state of modern greece over what they would present as their national mythology, split down the middle between ancient pagan greece and medieval christian byzantium, and also the years of ottoman occupation up until the revolution. there were some writers like constantine paparrigopolous who tried to bridge the gap between the two (he claimed that alexander's military campaigns were done in part to "prepare" the territory for the coming of christ lmao), but even this was partly in response to western european ideas about What Greece Even Is, specifically jakob phillip fallmerayer who wrote a very poorly-received (in greece) treatise about how the Great and Noble Ancients shared no dna with the current inhabitants of greece, who were all "tainted" by the slavs. because european racism

so, all that aside, what is culturally greek? in general, being christian. modern greek life is built around the church, and a lot of the things that aren't Ancient Greece that we think of as being Authentically Greek have their roots in orthodox christianity: icons, byzantine churches, lamb as a central foodstuff, etc. of course, much as they are loath to admit it, a lot of greek culture today also comes from ottoman occupation: national costume (fezzes, silk brocade), music (~oriental~ tonality, distinctly eastern instruments), and, again, food (coffee, baklava [with apologies to my ancestors]). and then there's just a bunch of stuff in modern 20th century greek culture that's just a big mishmash of the population reshuffle in the 1920s, as greece and turkey had a big population exchange (that occasionally dipped into ethnic cleansing). in athens specifically, you would have greek refugees from ALL OVER asia minor, but also the islands, the levant, northern greece, and other places in the balkans, all with their own distinct cultural traditions, and historical explanations for those traditions, especially with things like dance and folk song. AND THEN ALSO the traditions of the greek diaspora, esp in america

in the 1930s, as part of the metaxas dictatorship, greek cultural policy was in the process of hammering out what it meant to be "authentically greek," in a familiar combination of ancient pagan and orthodox christian, before metaxas' death, the entry of greece into wwii, and then the greek civil war and the dictatorship of the colonels, but they never quite... finished the process

to bring this all back to your question, i dont' know. it depends. i will often hc percy/thalia/nico as being more greek-looking than other demigods bc of the big three, and sometimes i dabble with sally being greek, but whether or not they are Actually Greek is something else (in canon, anyway; in aus this is an entirely different situation). THAT SAID, the two greek traditions i know for certain that percy participates in are making great food and loving his mother. which isn't even a strictly greek thing anyway. i can't even joke about him having the traditional greek breakfast of coffee and a cigarette bc i hc him hating coffee 😂

[uroboros-if]

Fashion in Uroboros

A brief overview of the different styles of fashion within the IF's setting! It was going to be much longer than it is now, since I initially explained the reasoning I chose these... but I'll resist!

Note that the fashion is not aiming to be authentic. In fact, I've highlighted some of the different ways I've attempted to make these extremely different styles take influence from one another, and even modified them to make more sense thematically for the story.

The fashion is merely inspired, not necessarily accurate to the fashion they're inspired from. Realism isn't the goal, but I still want them to be somewhat convincing, and also cool-looking! I'll also add more thoughts towards the end on this note.

༺═──────────────

Southwestern Galaio - Takes inspiration from Rococo fashion, in part because its climate is similar to western Europe (oceanic climate). Extravagant and blindingly opulent, though I envision it as incorporating more naturalistic elements, such as birds and flowers into their design. However, their design also tend to be asymmetrical and large-scaled.

Portrait of Anastasia Ushakova by Ivan Kusjmitsch Makarov; painting by Lucius Rossi; and "The proposition" by Arturo Ricci

Western Galaio - Takes inspiration from Song Dynasty China, as it also has a humid subtropical climate. A time of prosperity as well, but I chose it over the Tang Dynasty because the designs are more simplistic. I wanted this region to be more muted, but still elegant in fashion compared to other regions. Not as flashy, and much less concerned about extravagant wealth. Though it's in Song style, I enlisted the help of an article to help me incorporate some western elements to it, such as lace and fans.

Lexie from Hanfu Story; Bleu from Hanfu Story; and Butterfly Dream from NewMoonDance!

Central Galaio (Part 1) - Humid continental climate. Closer to the southwest, their fashion reflects much of Rococo style as well, but with some modifications (no train for dresses, etc.). This is in reference to Catherine the Great's time, in which Russia had oriented itself towards European fashion (specifically, the Rococo style), but Catherine the Great dictated the fashion to be more Russian and instill national pride.

Catherine the Great by Fedor Rokotov, 1763

Central Galaio (Part 2) - Farther from the southwest and more towards the north, their fashion is much closer to Western Galaio. They still have elements of the southwest, but they have a strong emphasis on functionality and practicality, which the southwest appears to be fundamentally against.

hanfu by 瞳莞汉服 (left and center); photography by 松果sir and model @白川鹅 (right)

Central Galaio (Part 3) - There's a distinct region that is a cold desert. Here is inspired by Mongolian deel. It's thicker and has several layers to withstand the cold, compared to Western Galaio's clothing, which in contrast have lighter fabrics.

13th century Mongolian deel from Mongulai, founded by Telmen Luvsandorj

Eastern Galaio - Also a wealthy coastal region of Galaio. Mediterranean climate. They take inspiration from the extravagance of the southwest, but fashion is looser, free, and light. The colors are also more natural, like white, brown, blue, etc. rather than the entire spectrum of colors that the southwest and west enjoy.

Deities - Inspired by Edo period Japan, another period of flourishing economic growth. The fashion of the deities likely came from the fashion of a past time, rather than a reflection of current human fashion. Western and Central Galaio's clothing look similar to the kosode gods wear, perhaps because these regions are more rooted in tradition compared to Southwestern and Eastern Galaio. The major modification I made for the fashion of deities, however, is making it more unisex and more relaxed.

From Philadelphia Museum of Art; the Mary Griggs Burke Collection; and from asianhistory.tumblr.com

Additional Notes

I had tormented myself a lot over authenticity, but I realized the fashion can remain merely inspired, not directly referenced. I'm not actually trying to make a Walmart version of France or any of these cultures. However, I do hope that the admiration I have for these cultures shine through!

A lot of these come from periods of prosperity, the "golden ages". Galaio is beautiful and prosperous, but it obscures a deep ugliness within.

These may be subject to change, and won't be super prominent in the story itself. They merely gave me a general idea or silhouette of the kind of clothes people may wear. I think the most reference I'll give them within the IF is a general aesthetic of the clothes rather than specific details. Hence why they're merely inspired.

Thanks for reading thus far! :)

[kemetic-dreams]

Traditionally, the people now known as Cherokee refer to themselves as Aniyunwiya (ah nee yun wee yah), a name usually translated as "the Real People," sometimes "the Original People."

▪The Cherokee never had princesses. This is a concept based on European folktales and has no reality in Cherokee history and culture. In fact, Cherokee women were very powerful. They owned all the houses and fields, and they could marry and divorce as they pleased. Kinship was determined through the mother's line.

Clan mothers administered justice in many matters. Beloved women were very special women chosen for their outstanding qualities. As in other aspects of Cherokee culture, there was a balance of power between men and women. Although they had different roles, they both were valued.

▪The Cherokee never lived in tipis. Only the nomadic Plains tribes did. The Cherokee were southeastern woodland natives, and in the winter they lived in houses made of woven saplings, plastered with mud and roofed with poplar bark. In the summer they lived in open-air dwellings roofed with bark.

▪The Cherokee have never worn feathered headdresses except to please tourists. These long headdresses were worn by Plains Natives and were made popular through Wild West shows and Hollywood movies. Cherokee men traditionally wore a feather or two tied at the crown of the head. In the early 18th century, Cherokee men wore cotton trade shirts, loincloths, leggings, front-seam moccasins, finger-woven or beaded belts, multiple pierced earrings around the rim of the ear, and a blanket over one shoulder. At that time, Cherokee women wore mantles of leather or feathers, skirts of leather or woven mulberry bark, front-seam moccasins, and earrings pierced through the earlobe only. By the end of the 18th century, Cherokee men were dressing much like their white neighbors. Men were wearing shirts, pants, and trade coats, with a distinctly Cherokee turban. Women were wearing calico skirts, blouses, and shawls. Today Cherokee people dress like other Americans, except for special occasions, when the men wear ribbon shirts with jeans and moccasins, and the women wear tear dresses with corn beads, woven belts, and moccasins.

▪The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) are descended from Cherokee people who had taken land under the Treaty of 1819 and were allowed to remain in North Carolina; from those who hid in the woods and mountains until the U.S. Army left; and from those who turned around and walked back from Oklahoma. By 1850 they numbered almost a thousand. Today the Eastern Band includes about 11,000 members, while the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma claims more than 100,000 members, making the Cherokee the largest tribe in the United States.

▪Cherokee arts and crafts are still practiced: basket-weaving, pottery, carving, finger-weaving, and beadwork.

▪The Cherokee language is spoken as a first language by fewer than a thousand people and has declined rapidly because of the policies of federally operated schools. However, since the tribe has begun operation of their own schools, Cherokee language is being systematically taught in the schools.

▪Traditional Cherokee medicine, religion, and dance are practiced privately.

▪There have never been Cherokee shamans. Shamanism is a foreign concept to North America. The Cherokee have medicine men and women.

▪"aho" is not a Cherokee word and Cherokee speakers never use it. Most are actually offended by the misuse of this word. It's not some kind of universal Native word used by all tribes, as many believe. Each individual tribe have their own languages. We can respect these languages by using them correctly or not at all.

▪In order to belong to one of the seven Cherokee clans, your mother had to have been/be Cherokee and her clan is passed on to you. If the maternal line has been broken by a non Cherokee or someone had all sons, you have no clan, which is the case with many today.

▪There is only one Cherokee tribe that consist of three bands. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, United Keetoowah Band of Oklahoma and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina. All others who claim a different band than one of the three above are not considered Cherokee and are a direct threat to Cherokee tribal sovereignty. In fact, to be Cherokee, one must be registered with the tribe, as Cherokee is a citizenship granted through documentation. One can have Native DNA but is not considered Cherokee until they are a registered tribal citizen.

Via N. Bear

Cherokee man

North Carolina

[nakibistan]

People often say that LGBTQIA+ people doesn't exists in Muslim/Islamic World. Nowdays many muslims argued that LGBTQI+ rights are contrary to their traditional beliefs, homosexuality shouldn't be decriminalized in their native countries,because it goes against their moral values,cultural norms & social mores,[...].

But previous Islamic history & muslim traditions had wide range of acceptance of sexual & gender diversity.In those days Muslim communities weren't so bigotted, heterosexist,homophobic/transphobic, heteropatriarchal.Colonialism,communism,dictatorship,islamist regime justified the prejudices against queer folks in Muslim world, not Islam itself.

In 1854, Ottoman empire legalised consensual homosexuality in parts of Middle East,North Africa,Eastern Europe & West Asia.Notably Mughal,Mamluk,Khilji,Sayyid, Pathan,Lodi,Abbasid,Safavid,Qajar,Ottoman empire gave privileges to gender variants and eunuchs.Even it is also said that Aghawas (a designation for trans feminine, effeminate,agender/eunuch & intersex) were served as guardian of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)'s mosque & tomb.There had been numerous homoerotic paintings & same sex romantic poetries in medieval islamic era.In pre-modern muslim societies ghazals (sufi spiritual song) has direct references with queerness.In some sufi traditions cross-dressing, gender fluidity was considered as sacred.

Since 18th & 19th century almost all muslim countries were colonized or being influenced by European Orthodox Christians.Europeans pushed their moral codes,heteropatriarchal system & gender roles upon muslim communities.But western colonialism was unable to erase queerness & love from asia.In Pakistan,Bangladesh,India & some parts of Afghanistan, Hijras (designation term for trans feminine,trans woman,gender diverse,intersex) are still exists.Hijras has recognition of third gender in Pakistan,India & Bangladesh.They have some civil rights in those countries mentioned.But Transgender people's livelihood in Afghanistan is very worst.Some Afghan trans people's lifestyles are very similar to Hijra/Khawaja Sara subculture. In central-asian muslim cultures gender vice-versa or variance are not uncommon.Bacha bazi or Bacha-bozi is practice where adult men get sexual services from young crossdressers and effeminates.

Waria, another transgender muslim community can be found in Indonesia.Waria transgenders has very limited rights comparing to Hijras.In South Sulawesi, Indonesia Bugis (a muslim tribe) recognized 5 genders: Oroané(masculine men), makkunrai (feminine women), Calalai (trans-masculine or masculine women), Calabai (trans-feminine or feminine male), Bissu (androgynous or non-binary).The classification of the calabai,calalai, & bissu as third genders is disputed.These roles can also be seen as fundamental occupational and spiritual callings, which are not as directly involved in designations such as male and female.In pre-Islamic culture, Bissu were seen as intermediaries between the people and the gods.The Bissu are closely associated with the female yet androgynous moon goddess, as her spiritual offspring.Up until the 1940s, the Bissu were still central to keeping ancient palace rites alive, including coronations of kings & queens. Historically, Bissu have played an important role in other ceremonies as well,particularly in weddings and childbirth events.However today Bissu & Waria faces marginalization in their homeland due to rise of Political Islamism & Islamic Extremism .

Here is a list of Muslim/Islamic nations where homosexuality is not a criminal offense (technically):

Albania - Legal since Ottoman period.

Bosnia & Herzegovina - Legal since Ottoman period.

Kosovo - Legal since Ottoman period.

Azerbaijan - Legal since 1918 or 2000 (not sure).But state often arrests LGBTQ community members.

Northern Cyprus - Legal since Ottoman period,legal in modern northern cyprus since 2015.

Turkey - Legal since Ottoman period, legal in modern turkey since 1923.

Jordan - Legal since Ottoman period,legal in hashemite kingdom of jordan since 1951.

Bahrain - Legal since Ottoman period.

West Bank (Palestine) - Female homosexuality always been legal,male homosexuality is legal since 1951.

Gaza (Palestine) -Female homosexuality always been legal.

Lebanon - Legal since Ottoman period, legal in modern lebanon since 2018 (however the legal status of homosexuality is vogue)

Kazakhstan - Legal since 1997 (de facto),nationwide legal since 1998 (de jure).

Kyrgyzstan - Legal since 1998.

Egypt - Legal since Ottoman period.Although private consensual homosexuality is not criminalized by domestic laws.Commercial & adult consensual homosexuality is de-facto illegal since 1961.

Kuwait -Female homosexuality always been legal.

UAE - There's no explicit federal law against homosexuality.But commercial & non-commercial homosexuality is de-facto illegal.

Burkina Faso - always legal

Djibouti - always legal

Mali - legal since 1961

Mayotte - always legal

Niger - always legal

Guinea Bissau - legal since 1993.

Sierra Leone -Female homosexuality always been legal.

Uzbekistan - Female homosexuality always been legal in federal law.

Turkmenistan - Female homosexuality always been legal in federal law.

Tajikistan - legal since 1998.

Indonesia - Homosexuality never been a criminal offense until 2022.LGBTQI+ people often faced persecution by state & harassment.In 2022, Indonesian parliament passed a bill that outlaws all types of sexual relationships outside the traditional marriage.

Here is a list of Muslim/Islamic nations,where transgender & gender diverse people has rights:

Iran - Transgender individuals were officially recognized by the government, under condition of undergoing sex reassignment surgery, with some financial assistance being provided by the govt. for the costs of surgery, and with a change of sex marker on birth certificates available post-surgery since early 1980s. However, substantial legal and societal barriers still exist in Iran. Trans individuals who do not undergo surgery have no legal recognition and those that do are first submitted to a long and invasive process (including virginity tests, parental approval, psychological counseling that reinforces feelings of shame & inspection by the Family Court).

Bosnia and Herzegovina - Trans people may change their legal gender in Bosnia & Herzegovina after a sex reassignment surgery & other medical treatments.

Pakistan - Pakistan recognized Hijras as third gender in 2009. In 2018 Pakistan's parliament passed “The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act” which provides fundamental rights in health, education, government and security.

Lebanon - In late 1990s Lebanon allow sex reassignment surgery.In 2016 Lebanon court legally recognized a trans man as man.

Turkey - Transgender individuals were allowed to change their gender since 1988.However later Turkey adopted harsh policies for transgenders,required many pre–requisutes in order to be able to receive gender-affirming surgery. Transgender persons had to ask & be granted permission for the surgery,be at least 18 years of age,unmarried, & sterilized in order to receive gender-affirming surgery.

Jordan - Since 2014 jordan allow trans people to change their gender after a sex change operation.

Bahrain -Since 2008 Bahrain allow trans people to change their gender after a sex change operation.

Bangladesh - since 2013 Bangladesh recognized hijras & eunuchs as third gender.In 1975 Dr. Hosne Ara Begum became the first transsexual woman to be recognised as woman in Bangladesh.

Indonesia - Indonesia allows sex change operation for Warias & give limited rights for transgenders.

Kazakhstan - Since 2003, trans people allowed to change legal gender following sex change surgery,medical examinations, & sterilisation.

Kyrgyzstan -Transgender people allowed to change legal gender following sex reassigment surgery, medical treatments,sterilisation since 2014.

Tajikistan -Under Tajik law, trans people may change their legal gender on their passport if they provide a medical statement that they have undergone sex reassignment surgery. There has been 2 sex-change operations performed – the first one in 2001 and the second one in 2014.

UAE- allows intersex persons to undergoes a sex change surgery & change their gender.

Egypt - In 1988, a sunni Islamic Fatwa by Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy grants legal permission to perform gender affirming surgery.In Egypt, those who want to undergo the surgery must seek an approval from a gender reassignment review committee at the Medical Syndicate of Al-Azhar. But the committee has not convened since 2013, when Al-Azhar withdrew its member from the ccommission.

[easterneuropeancrafts]

Bulgarian woman from Smilevo (1931), Macedonian Bulgarian Woman (also known as Bulgarian woman from Smilevo) (1931)

Ivan Mrkvička

[ww1-uniforms-tournament]

Siam on the left, Czechoslovakia on the right.

(Operating in three different armies, the Czechoslovak Legion had three different uniforms, of which I had to exclude two to remain fair to Siam. I eventually settled on the one of the Russian army, which welcomed about 4x more Czechoslovak soldiers than the Italian and French armies).

The Kingdom of Siam was small and of few means, but the colonial pretenses of the European powers pushed it to affirm its authority. After declaring war in 1916, it sent out a Siamese Expeditionary Force of about 1,300 men which arrived in 1918. Dressed in a curious mix of Mills equipment and French helmets, their participation allowed Siam to have a say in the writing of the Treaty of Versailles and to no longer have to worry about the Allies' claims to its territory.

Czechoslovakia did not yet exist as a country when the Great War started, but its national identity was strong and alive within the Czechs and Slovaks who founded the Czechoslovak Legions which deserted Austria-Hungary's conscripted armies to fight with the Russian, Italian and French forces. Though they were too few to make a difference on the Western and Alpine fronts, their presence on the Eastern front forged their legend. Here they are wearing a standard Russian uniform, though, like the Siamese, they sport an Adrian helmet with personalised insignia which sets them apart.

Art on the right by Osprey Publishing.

[arthurdrakoni]

Flag of the Cherokee Confederacy

This is the flag of the Cherokee Confederacy. It comes from a world where the Spanish Armada successfully conquered England in 1588. While England did eventually regain its independence, the Spanish conquest severely stunted England’s growth as a world power, and lead to greater political instability. As a result, England never became a demographic juggernaut during the colonization of North America. The lands that would have become the Thirteen Colonies are a patchwork of nations and colonies founded by numerous European nations. There are also several independent indigenous nations, such as the Cherokee Confederacy. 

The Cherokee Confederacy also includes the Muskogee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw tribes. The Cherokee, as reflected by the name, were the founding tribe of the confederacy. The Cherokee Confederacy was one of the first indigenous nations of North America to implement westernization and industrialization programs. Today, most Cherokee dress in European-style clothing, but do wear traditional clothing on special occasions. Like most southern nations in eastern North America, the Cherokee historically practiced slavery. Slavery was formally abolished in 1885 as part of the modernization efforts. Racial divides and tensions still remain, but the Cherokee government has, in recent years, implement programs to help blacks integrate into Cherokee society. 

The Cherokee legislature, known as the Tribal Council, is organized into a semi-parliamentary democracy, with a prime minister as the Head of Government, and a president as Head of State. The Cherokee Tribal Council is closer in style to the French National Assmbly, rather than to the English Parliament. The Cherokee Confederacy is centered around what would be western North Carolina, Tennessee, and the northern bits of Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia. The indigenous republics of North America, being sovereign nations, did not suffer an equivalent of the Indian Removal Act. 

Historically, the Cherokee Confederacy has been rivals with the Haudenosaunee Federation. However, in recent times the two nations have been putting their rivalries behind them. In terms of good relations, the Cherokee Confederacy has historically been an ally of New Neatherlands, which in located in Virginia. The various nations of North America have formed a European Union-style economic union, and there are hopes that this will eventually leads to a federation. There is a general spirit of good will and optimism. That said, North America still has a ways to go before its nation states become united. 

The flag contains seven gold stars in the shape of the Big Dipper, or Ursa Major, on an orange field with a green border. Ursa Major is an important constellation to several tribes within the Cherokee Confederacy. It also symbolizes how the same night sky shine over the entire Cherokee Confederacy. Blue would seem a natural color choice, but the Cherokee picked orange instead. There is some debate about why this is. Popular belief says that it symbolizes the Cherokee Confederacy’s ties to New Netherlands. However, the Cherokee actually picked orange to contrast with the blue flags several other North American nations use. The green border is to offset the orange.

Link to the original flag on my blog: https://drakoniandgriffalco.blogspot.com/2022/05/flag-of-cherokee-confederacy.html?m=1

[pure-ablution]

Why is sw so common when men in eastern europe are so generous and doting from the get go

Two reasons: sexploitation after the dissolution of the USSR, and the fact that Eastern European men aren’t the universally amazing, generous providers that the internet makes them out to be.

Anyone who lived in a post-Soviet nation in the ’90s can attest to the horrors that went down back then, I was lucky enough to be born a little later but I grew up hearing the stories. The Soviet Union, with its strict laws and customs entirely removed from the rest of the world, had gone, and in its place was a totally unfamiliar capitalist system that the people had never seen before—nobody remembered a time before Communism, and even then, this new modernity didn’t resemble the Tsarist era in the slightest. The ’90s and early ’00s were completely lawless, filled with organised crime and people acting out of desperation from total, abject poverty. My elder brother, Danya, who is old enough to remember those times, once told me that children as young as 6 or 7 were addicted to sniffing glue. It was bad everywhere, in any country where Communism had just fallen, and people were desperate, and naïve to a new world that they didn’t know from Adam. Women were easily coerced into prostitution through outright deception, and the West revelled in the fresh population of beautiful young girls who could be exploited for sex tourism. The lucky girls were picked up by the modelling scouts roaming the countryside at the time, but many of them were just straight-up pimped out.

Eastern European cultures maintain traditional gender roles to varying extents, and most of them also suffer a significant population disparity between the sexes. The losses from the wars of the past century, alongside other factors, have meant that there are significantly more women than men in nations like Russia and Ukraine, and this means that the dating culture is much more competitive and much more uneven compared to the West. There’s a stereotype about Slavic girls dressing up to the nines just to take the metro or pick up a newspaper, and it comes straight from this statistic, because women are expected to look 10/10 at all times whilst the men have their pick of the litter. Sure, Eastern European guys know how to navigate the dating scene in their native countries, they know that it’s customary to give gifts and act the gentleman and whatever, but that doesn’t mean anything when you’re married to him, he’s locked you down and can do as he pleases, and you’re told by everyone around you that you’re lucky to even have a man. It’s not all men but it’s enough, I’m cautious of men from my home country because they’re typically entitled good-for-nothings, who think they can pick from a multitude of beautiful women and lock her in a cage, whilst they slave away in the coal mines.

It’s not hard to see why the sex trade has flourished with girls from Eastern Europe. We’re just foreign enough to be exotic but not undesirable, and we’re just desperate enough to take up escorting but not anything less.

[unhonestlymirror]

Empires make us believe that we have to operate only with reconstructed clothes when making a historically accurate outfit, which is found only locally. Well, that is a very narrow way of thinking. By such way, you'll never gonna understand how people actually dressed. How can we think wider?

We should take into account with whom people traded. For example: we know that Baltic tribes sold amber to ancient Italy and France. If they sold something, they must have bought something too. This is how nations work. Take any ancient Italian/French item which you like, imagine how it would look like in Baltic weather/religious/etc conditions - voila. You unlocked a new ancient Baltic look! Of course, for this, you must be fluent in Baltics history and culture, this is the hardest part.

Btw, this is exactly how empires operate. They just take a random piece of clothes/jewelry which they bought/colonized, add some cultural details - voila. Instead of a clearly Finnish female corset, you have a proud ancient Novgorod corset; instead of a suspiciously Turkic looking hat, you have a Polish/Ukrainian hat. It's all about the economics. The nation, which has more audacity to call something purely their own wins. Why can't we, Eastern Europeans, do this as well? Maybe we must get rid of our inferiority complex?