#historyroasting

[thebaffledcaptain]

actually part of what bothers me so much about this fandomification of historical figures is that it feels so disingenuous. if you love a person… you treat them with all the respect with which you would treat another human being, because that’s what they are. the same thing goes for historical figures—they are not any less human for having been dead 250 years. I don’t know. I just feel like if you really do care about these people then you don’t engage with them and their histories by blorboifying them, and if that’s the only way you can engage with them… well, then i’d take a step back to assess whether you can really call that history.

[jitzbala]

Lines in the Sand: A Conversation with Sykes and Picot

Had a fiery imagined convo with Sykes & Picot about their botched map-drawing. 🤯 Spoiler: they had no clue what they were doing! Check out how they handle my roasting and admit their blunders. 🔥 #HistoryRoast #SykesPicot #WhatWereTheyThinking

Daily writing promptIf you could meet a historical figure, who would it be and why?View all responses The Sykes-Picot Agreement is a significant historical blunder. It stands out as an example of how not to divide a region. In 1916, Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and François Georges-Picot of France drafted this secret agreement. It carved up territories with little regard for the people living…

[thebaffledcaptain]

I think something history Tumblr would benefit from understanding is that for every person who’s irrationally obsessed with a historical figure to the point of bending their perceptions of them to be entirely positive, there’s also a person who’s irrationally obsessed with hating them just because they think it’s cool to reject what’s been taught to them—when the real problem is not solely that only the good side of these figures is taught, but also that only one side is taught in the first place.

And like, I’m glad we’re moving away from blindly idolizing historical figures, genuinely. But there’s a big difference between hating a historical figure for what they did and what they believed in, and hating a historical figure just because it’s fun to do. The problem lies not in people hating historical figures but in when they make it their entire purpose of engaging with history. People are entitled to having feelings about history and I think it’s entirely warranted to hate certain figures—you can find something to hate about almost any person in history and I’m never going to tell you not to because you should, in fact, condemn those things. But as with anything, there are always people who just… like to hate things, and that seems to be the only reason why they ever engage with it. At that point I simply question why one would claim an interest in history if only to hate it so much.

[thebaffledcaptain]

Chris the Redcoat spitting facts.

Credit to him for the meme—check out his channel here.

[thebaffledcaptain]

I’m going to sound like a filthy british bastard by saying this but one of the things I think turns me away from this heavily fandomized tumblrification of the american revolution is genuinely the lack of british perspectives. I obviously don’t fault tumblr for this being the case (it goes without saying that it is a far deeper issue than just that… cough cough american nationalism and exceptionalism and the effect that has on the media) but in spaces like this there really just isn’t… any nuance at all to this conflict which was so undeniably nuanced in so many ways. it’s all about gay founding fathers and cool spies which. I understand the appeal but at a certain point I’m genuinely not sure how much of it we can call history

[thebaffledcaptain]

Can you give an example (not name-and-shaming, just something vague or generic) to illustrate what you mean about people blorbo-ifying historical figures? I'm wondering how much of what you're interpreting as that is people intentionally stepping off the path of history to have fun with obviously-fictionalized copies of those characters - versus, for example, those people saying "Hamilton was autistic" because they want to relate to him/take three small misunderstood details and run with it.

I'm leading this with the disclaimer that obviously one post on this topic does not represent my entire view on a subject as nuanced as this, and the disclaimer that I have never and will never specifically go in and call particular people out on it because that's just an asshole move and ultimately not a respectful or effective way to confront stuff like this (not that I thought you were implying either of those things, anon).

The biggest specification I can make is that I'm not talking about already fictionalized versions of these historical figures when I complain about this kind of thing: I am of the belief that a fandom side of history can exist and that is not inherently a bad thing. The problem occurs when the lines between "fandom" and "history" become blurred, often unintentionally, and frequently as a result of people's genuine interest in these (fictionalized representations of) historical figures. History-inspired and history-based media, as well as interactions with it, are not inherently wrong as long as they're not claiming to be actual history. Like, as much as most of us cringe to look at it, I think if Miku Binder Thomas Jefferson could exist solely in the contextual void of the Hamilton musical, that's honestly not the worst thing in the world. (Honestly, I can't know for sure the artist's true views on the subject, but I feel like something that exaggerated could be indicative that they're not talking about the historical figure Thomas Jefferson himself, but specifically this fictional Hamilton musical version.)

But as I said, I think there does result a lot of genuine interest (which is great!) in the history and the figures behind the fandom stuff, which often leads to the blurring of these lines—people learning more, becoming passionate, but mistakenly and probably unintentionally equating these historical figures with their fictional representations and treating them like they would any fictional character. I don't, like, personally hold a hatred for these people because I think most of the time it goes unrecognized. It's more of a result of ignorance or misunderstanding of historiography than it is a genuine disrespect for learning history.

So anyway, to provide an actual example like you asked, I'll say writing fanfiction about characters while claiming they are the actual historical figures. Writing fanfiction for a history-based fandom, or creating fictional characters inspired by them, is one thing, but doing it for the actual genuine figures from history is another. I recognize that this might be partly a result of my personal philosophy on the whole RPF issue, but the idea of treating real people like characters without their consent has never sat right with me. I suppose you could debate the ethics of them already being dead, but still, as a principle, I am of the philosophy that one should treat other people as people, and I find it very weird to treat them as characters when they are still people, however long dead they are. I don't love certain types of historical fiction for this same reason, so I hope it doesn't exclusively come off as a fandom thing. I think this is one of those places where these figures' relatability is indeed an important perspective, because it reminds us of the fact that they were just like you and me, and thus I see it as important to treat them as such: not with blind respect and reverence, but also not with a disregard for their real human existence.

Other stuff has the same sorts of issues: making headcanons, certain fanart, slapping labels on people without leaving room for nuance (I can't put everything under a blanket statement, obviously). It's because of how close I feel to history that I take issue with this stuff—because I always, always want to recognize that above all, these people were people, and I need to acknowledge them as people. In a certain sense I aim to treat them the way I want to be treated, like I'd do for any of my fellow humans (with the obvious nuance that comes from academic perspectives and such), because again, they're people too.

On the issue of relatabilty, I certainly don't think it's wrong to assess evidence through the perspective a modern lens, nor do I think it's wrong to want to relate to these figures. I simply think that we need to be able to acknowledge that great truth of historiography, which is that there are so many things we just can't know. In researching history our goal is essentially to develop assumptions based on the evidence available to us—I hesitate to even use the phrase "draw conclusions" because that suggests arriving at a level of certainty we will unfortunately never be able to have. So, you know, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to say that, like, the real Alexander Hamilton was likely what we would consider bisexual nowadays, or something like that. But I also wouldn't say that we could claim with 100% certainty that he was or that he wasn't. As for the fictional interpretation of him from the musical, yeah, whatever, that's a character, you're free to interpret him how you wish as long as you're not equating him with the actual figure. We can't necessarily, for example, impose headcanons from the musical onto our perceptions of the real people.

On a tangentially related note I also feel that we tend to have an obsession with "relatability" in characters, and historical figures as an extension of that. As a whole we could stand to learn more about how to love both characters and people without having to relate to them. Which is not to say you can't love them for that, but... we also don't need to be going out of our ways to interpret them as being relatable to us in order to love them, which is where the problem lies. That's where this problematic lack of actual history comes from. In the same ways that you don't need to, and probably shouldn't, endorse all their opinions, you don't need to relate to them in every way in order to love them as a historical figure. Love is a complicated thing and I am frankly thankful that it is.

Anyway, this is getting very long. My main point is that history and fandom can coexist, but they call for different treatments and shouldn't ever be equated. I'm not specifically condemning anyone—as I said, I think most of it is well-intentioned interest that gets a little out of hand. I've been guilty of it myself before and I don't want anyone to assume that I think I'm "above" it; I just try to be hyper-aware of it. I love that people discover interests in history through fandom, I just think being mindful is absolutely imperative when you're engaging with it. You can, and should, love history—just be careful that you're not bending the truth in order to do that.

[thebaffledcaptain]

ough sometimes I see amrev posts floating around that are based in truth but are just Not That Correct…. daily reminder to always supplement with your own research and consider context

[thebaffledcaptain]

Sorry this is just… a PSA that I am a strong believer in the idea that fandom and history can coexist but they need to be separate things—I don’t hold it against anyone for being into the fandom side of things, especially since I’ve been in a number of those fandoms myself, but the way it often blurs the lines of history does tend to make me uncomfortable.

I’m not trying to call anyone out or act like I’m better for not doing it, I just have very complicated feelings about the fandomization of history and would really rather stay away from it. This isn’t directed at anyone in specific; I’ve just been gaining followers recently and I want it to be known that you’re free to follow me but you should be aware I tend to complain about this a lot and prefer not to engage with it myself.

[thebaffledcaptain]

with stuff like this I’m always thinking about how @focsle talks about his whalemen—if he doesn’t mind me using him as an example—with the meticulous care of a historian, with the love of a fellow human being. his work is a testament to how there are other ways to care about historical figures, even the near-nameless ones, without making stuff up to fill in the gaps. go learn about them. understand you can never truly know them but get as close as you can. visit their resting places; leave them a gift. they’re people too.

look, I understand the desire to engage with a person by fictionalizing them and playing around with that persona—it’s freeing, it’s fun, it’s unbound by the rules of real life—but ultimately you’re never going to be engaging with them, only the version you want to believe. if you’re going to fictionalize them just to make them more fun to you and not to, say, artistically explore their character and their impact through a piece of media, or otherwise learn about them, then how much respect does that really show? is that love, really?

actually part of what bothers me so much about this fandomification of historical figures is that it feels so disingenuous. if you love a person… you treat them with all the respect with which you would treat another human being, because that’s what they are. the same thing goes for historical figures—they are not any less human for having been dead 250 years. I don’t know. I just feel like if you really do care about these people then you don’t engage with them and their histories by blorboifying them, and if that’s the only way you can engage with them… well, then i’d take a step back to assess whether you can really call that history.

[thebaffledcaptain]

and the thing I suppose I understand but don’t agree with is that media loves to simplify but I find that such a shame when even on the most surface american vs. british level, it’s just so much more interesting to represent that nuance in media! like, I want amrev media from a british perspective, I want something where the protagonist is being torn in two directions, I want a double agents finding they’re unsure where their alliances lie, stuff like that… there’s so much potential in that nuance and it’s all left untouched in favor of america good british evil liberty and freedom god bless

I’m going to sound like a filthy british bastard by saying this but one of the things I think turns me away from this heavily fandomized tumblrification of the american revolution is genuinely the lack of british perspectives. I obviously don’t fault tumblr for this being the case (it goes without saying that it is a far deeper issue than just that… cough cough american nationalism and exceptionalism and the effect that has on the media) but in spaces like this there really just isn’t… any nuance at all to this conflict which was so undeniably nuanced in so many ways. it’s all about gay founding fathers and cool spies which. I understand the appeal but at a certain point I’m genuinely not sure how much of it we can call history