#should we call them historians at this point?

[aedesluminis]

Very annoyed by how some historians and amateurs often stress in a derogatory way the fact that Talleyrand limped whenever they talk about him. Like, there are infinite reasons he could be criticized for outside of his physical disability he could do nothing about and you choose to slander him exactly for that.

[shepfax]

as things start gearing up for Autism Acceptance Month I am going to make an effort to share stuff from nonverbal, high support needs, and other words for "severely" autistic people (especially from marginalized groups like autistic people of color) and I think others should too. I chose to do this because I am very deeply opposed to the way low support people have gone about destigmatizing autism.

me, I am the epitome of the white "geeky" autistic that I read about in books from specialists and historians: I had no speech delay, I'm capable of many self-maintenance tasks like hygiene and food, but I still am not independent and I struggle greatly with social situations, show repetitive behavior, and have sensory integration problems.

by making it seem like autism is just a label for quirky people that get really into tv shows, prefer small silverware, and fidget sometimes, you've come all the way back around to encouraging ignorance. you've started to push people with more disabling autistic traits into the background of your activism or even tried to pretend your activism doesn't apply to them.

obviously it's important to acknowledge and share the ways that autistic people who can speak and maintain independence still struggle immensely in a neurotypical world, because that is something the vast majority of people still don't understand. but we need to do better at emphasizing the ways people's autism affects their lives, and advocating for the rights of people with different needs than our own.

this might seem harsh to say but it really seems like some of you are ashamed to be associated with people from different parts of the autism spectrum than you. why claim the label then?

when you see someone talk about an experience you didn't have, always make an effort to learn something from it.

come together with people from all points on the autism spectrum. make friends with them and listen to their voice, whether it's spoken or not.

it is called neurodiversity for a reason. our brains are extremely diverse, and that's why it's important to make sure you are not your only source.

if you look at one person on the spectrum, even if that person is you, that is one autistic person, and you can't make claims about autism based on that person alone.

[genericpuff]

zoo wee mama, the new Hbomberguy video is a RIDE and it's absolutely relevant to everything going on in webcomics. let's talk about it.

I'm sure a lot of you have heard about this video going around already (it's gotten 2+ million views in just a little over 24 hours) but if you haven't, I highly recommend you set aside time to watch it yourself, I was surprised to see how much he had dug up especially regarding Youtubers that I never suspected were plagiarizing. He also says some very on-point stuff about how we view content creators and plagiarizing in this "do it yourself" industry that really resonated with me because it's stuff I've been saying for years in the webcomic sphere.

I won't spoil the video much because I think it's best experienced watching it for yourself (especially because he's putting all the money he earns off this video towards compensating the people who had their work plagiarized by one Youtuber in particular who's especially guilty... I'm not even gonna mince words, it's James Somerton) but this passage in particular just felt so validating to hear from someone who clearly holds themselves to the standards that more Youtubers - and creators in general - should be holding themselves to:

"I think a lot of people are inclined to protect creators they like on the grounds that plagiarism is a very academic-sounding problem, like something that happens in research papers or journalism, not something that you can do in a silly video made for entertainment purposes. Why are we holding Youtubers to standards? That would be like expecting accurate history from someone whose name has 'historian' in it! Because Youtubers often project a sense of being scrappy, do-it-yourself amateurs, it feels almost wrong to expect them to be professional... but a lot of them are professionals, regardless how authentic their persona may be. Youtubers are now among the most recognizable faces on the planet, and have become immensely wealthy doing this. Some are so influential we literally call them influencers. Maybe it's a good idea to have some standards for not stealing. Maybe." - Hbomberguy, "Plagiarism and You(tube)" timestamp: 3:35:32

Obviously this has nothing to directly do with webcomics but I do think it's something that reflects very similar behavior within the webcomic community that's, frankly, worth discussing. Many people justifiably want to make a living off their work, want webcomics as a whole to be taken more seriously in the mainstream next to traditional publishing, and for webcomic creators to be taken more seriously as professionals.

But at the same time, I still see a lot of infantilizing of the people in this industry, done by both their fans and the people within it, the idea that being a professional (noun) isn't mutually inclusive of being professional (adjective). It's how we've gotten creators in the past like Snailords, mongie, and yes, Rachel Smythe, who are often shielded by their fanbase on the basis of, "they're just indie comic creators doing what they love, leave them alone!" when they're very much not that, at least not anymore. At least two of those three creators have TV deals (though whether or not they'll make it to the screen is debatable), and all three of them have or have had Webtoons seemingly wrapped around their finger more so than any other creator (though mongie has argued she left Webtoons over unfair treatment, it really doesn't seem like that to the people who know how much mongie was intentionally pushing the rules of what she was allowed to post on the platform, particularly with her Sam x Charles smut).

They are not 'indie creators' anymore and they are not exempt from criticism just because their younger fanbase mistakenly assumes them to be the same age as them. Rachel, mongie, and Snailords are all in their mid-to-late 30's. They all have merchandising deals and either have TV deals or want to have TV deals. They've all been given priority advertising by Webtoons even at the cost of undercutting all the other creators and series on the platform that need it more. They are not "scrappy" creators, they're contractual professionals now and they all do not act like it. Whether it's reacting poorly to criticism or using their characters as a mouthpiece for their own egos or even just using their comics as a poorly disguised fetish, they're all contractual professionals who do not act professional. And they're not the only webcomic creators who do this.

And again, I've talked about this before on here and in the discussions on reddit concerning LO and other webtoons, so it's incredibly validating and refreshing to see Hbomberguy put those feelings into words (albeit about Youtubers, but let's be real, Webtoons is definitely trying to be the "Youtube of webcomics", as is Tapas and other competing webtoon platforms) because that sentiment rings true for a lot of the webtoon creators who have practically failed upwards and only forgo their advertised "professional status" when they're under fire for their actions and writing. Rachel is an "award winning creator" and "self-proclaimed folklorist" until her comic is criticized for its blatant misrepresentation and disrespect towards an entire culture, then all of a sudden "it's just fanfiction". Mongie is the creator of the bestselling series Let's Play until she's called out for racist depictions of Asians and Hispanic people in her work, then all of a sudden she's "just trying to make a fun comic" that's not meant to be taken that seriously. And of course, their audience of teens and young adults who don't know any better keep forgiving them and vehemently defending them because they wrongfully assume that these creators are scrappy teens just like themselves who just started making webcomics for fun and then achieved fame and glory overnight (which they're not!)

We should be having bigger discussions about what awaits the webcomic and "content creator" industry as a whole in the future and what standards we should be holding creators and their work to. We can't possibly expect these mediums to be taken seriously as a professional industry if we don't set better expectations for the quality of the work that's being created and the creators who are building these platforms for themselves.

"In current discourse, Youtubers simultaneously present as the forefront of a new medium, creative voices that need to be taken seriously as part of the 'next generation of media'... and also 'uwu smol beans little babies who shouldn't be taken seriously when they rip someone off and make tens of thousands of dollars doing it." - Hbomberguy, "Plagiarism and You(tube)" timestamp: 3:36:18

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/749333039047442432/httpsolderthannetfictumblrcompost74884185043?source=share

Sorry, long rant incoming.

Someone in the replies said it, but I think it needs to be said again where everyone can see it: I think a lot of the attitude that anon is somehow secretly pro-censorship because they think certain preferences are skeevy, and strenuously insisting that bad attitudes can NEVER be media's fault.... idk, maybe take it out of the context of debates about sexually explicit/pornographic media for a moment?

There are works of media that had pretty direct effects on activist and political movements, good and bad. Uncle Tom's Cabin inspired a lot of people to fight against slavery. The movie Birth of a Nation, which showed a history of the U.S. with the KKK as heroic, is considered by most historians to be a major contributor to the revival of the KKK in the 1920s. The Nazis used films, books, music, art, and so on in their propaganda, knowing it would help their ideas go down more easily. The Soviets did too. Every dictatorship did. Even democratic countries have done it as well, usually but not always in more subtle ways.

Do none of those count, because "oh, people who were going to be convinced by Birth of a Nation would be racist anyway"? "Good, non-racist people wouldn't be convinced by it"? I mean, the latter is true: there were plenty of people, especially black Americans but plenty of white allies too, who boycotted the film at the time. The NAACP led a boycott. But do you really think NO ONE was convinced? (What about people who previously didn't feel any way about it one way or the other? Were they just innately more evil, even if it might've just been that they weren't aware? Do supposedly progressive people in fandom realize how much this sounds like Christian original sin rhetoric...) And does it matter purely about media fully changing minds, or also how it galvanizes people who already think one way? If it gives them new talking points, new ways of thinking about it and convincing others? If it helps them believe their cause is more important and worth fighting for?

So why does this all suddenly change when we're talking about sex? Is porn really this special class of media where somehow all the rules about how we can both like things and also be critical of how media (fiction, news media, whatever) influences us - "be critical of the media you love," as a tote bag sold by Feminist Frequency said - just stop applying for some reason? Or maybe if something is bypassing your rational brain entirely and going directly for the pleasure centers, there's all the more reason to think critically about what it's saying? Propaganda is designed to bypass all that, too.

Also, if media really has NOTHING to do with it, that just wouldn't explain why it's disproportionately anime that feature these specific elements that seem to attract more people arguing for why it's wrong to be upset by rape or child exploitation in real life. I don't believe that everyone who watches slavery isekai or lolicon approves of those things irl - I think for the vast majority of people, it IS a fantasy and that's the point - but I have noticed that in places like the Anime News Network or Crunchyroll forums, the comments become a cesspool of creepy people arguing for why ages of consent should be lowered and mean feminists who don't like watching media with rape in it just need to get over themselves, in a way they just don't when you're talking about Attack on Titan or My Hero Academia or Shoujo Romance #4891 or whatever.

As another person in the notes said, abusers ARE opportunistic. They'll use something like Twilight as easily as they'll use the most uwu, soft, "non problematic" ship to argue for why they're allowed to abuse you. But I don't think that means we can't be critical (not calling for censorship, of course! but like, writing op-eds and stuff) of media that makes their arguments a little easier, maybe even directly makes their arguments for them.

You can believe both that everyone has the opportunity to read, watch, listen to, play what they want and make up their own minds about it, and that it's wrong for the government to ever decide what media is and isn't "acceptable," and also believe that media often is saying things that aren't apparent on the surface and that you should be critical of those messages, *especially* with the stuff you like.

The point is just that porn isn't like, fundamentally different from other fictional media in this way. (Or, hell, I would argue that fictional media isn't functionally different from other mass media in this way. If anything, fiction's politics are often more insidious in a way that makes it easier for them to reach people who might not otherwise be open to those messages in the form of, say, blatantly right-wing news media.)

It's particularly strange to me when people jump all over someone for expressing how something can be insidiously creepy in a more mundane way. The line people are upset about that used the word "unpack" was just making the point that even if we can agree lolicon isn't outright advocating pedophilia, even if we agree the point is that it's a fantasy and they're not like real children at all and that's what people like, it's still working within an idealization/fetishization of helplessness, innocence, and dependence, and that still has a lot that you can critique from a feminist perspective. It's still a thing that plays into some crappy societal ideas about who women are supposed to be, and is selling that to men as a romantic ideal. There's still a lot we can talk about there! And it's still totally fair for women to be wary of men where that seems to be all they're into - because for some (and I believe this was what anon was initially trying to say was their experience), it does impact how they treat real women. It doesn't have to be everyone for it to have an impact.

There's a lot of anime that presents women that way, even way outside of lolicon. A lot of it's anime I like! I'm still critical of that aspect of it. I still wish that particular part of it were different.

I still don't see how this makes me "pro censorship" unless I believe some kind of institution should mandate that that not be included. And whether that's the government, or the industry itself (people do kind of narrowly focus on "the government" in a way that would make a lot of industry-run censorship that was still very harmful, e.g. the Hollywood Hays Code, not "count"), or anyone, I very much disagree with that. Creators should be able to create what they want. A lot of what creators are doing with this is unconscious, is reflecting societal biases they learned but haven't thought deeply about.... which is precisely the point of critiquing how those show up in a work.

People love to talk about "secretly 'anti' attitudes" but at the end of the day, support or opposition to censorship is pretty straightforward. You believe someone should be stopped from making a particular kind of media, or you don't. If you don't, you're not pro-censorship, no matter how much you personally may not like that that media or a particular aspect of it exists. Most people who care about media have some media they wish didn't exist. It's about what they do about it that makes them pro or anti censorship. Talk to people who donate to or even work for the ACLU or other anti censorship groups; most of them don't like racist or sexist stuff, but they also don't believe it should be banned and that's the point.

Bringing it back to the discussion at hand, I think the point was just that you can't be blind to how power dynamics influence this stuff. I wouldn't even say specifically cishet men are at fault here, since some people who read this blog seem to think that anyone saying that is automatically talking about bioessentialism as opposed to like, societal stuff (don't ask me why, this has been explained on here enough times in enough different discourses over the years, I think). I'd just say anyone with power in that particular context. There's a reason why it's specifically mainstream media, aimed at groups in power, that tends to draw in creeps excusing the real thing... in a way that just similarly is not true of people in fanfiction fandom, who are usually a member of one or more oppressed categories, exploring that in their own marginal work. Fans of rape fanfiction just don't act the way that fans of slavery rape isekai do. It's because there is fundamentally a difference both when you're someone whom society tells you are entitled to everything you want in this particular arena, and also when a work is mainstream, broadening its reach, and speaking a particular message from the lens of people with economic and social power (who are making these mainstream works) and given approval by publishers/media studios/etc. in a way that is not the case with amateur work with tiny audiences. And, frankly, there's a difference between something that eroticizes rape from the point of view of the perpetrator vs. the victim.

Not a difference in terms of how legal it should be. Not a difference in whether every single person who watches it or likes it is bad. But a difference in terms of what it's saying, how it's saying that, and often the effects they have as a result. That, too, is true with every topic, not just sex.

I feel like a lot of people getting mad at these do fundamentally agree with this, but just have a weird blind spot when it's put in any sort of terminology that reminds them of certain bad arguments they've seen in fandom, uses any words that can be dismissed as "radfem" or "anti" or whatever, and so just refuse to engage with the actual meat of what is being said.

If you do actually believe though that it's wrong to EVER think media can have a negative effect on what people believe about irl issues, because there was always something "already there" that was going to "come out anyway" if it affects you that way (again, people: this is "original sin" rhetoric), and if you ever privately judge people for the media they like you're secretly pro-censorship. You do have to recognzie that both you personally come up short and also most peopel doing real concrete real world things to fight censorship would also come up short!

I think sometimes of an editorial that said "if you love Return of the Jedi but hated the Ewoks you understand feminist criticism" in terms of how you can be bothered by the sexism of a piece of media in a way you'd be bothered by any one individual element of it, and still overall like the whole. And also, you can be offended by something, even wish it didn't exist (don't we as nerds all have entries in some franchise we like or another that we wish didn't exist for fannish reasons?), without believing that it should be officially made to stop existing or have never existed in the first place. That last part does actaully matter as like, its own thing. It is in fact separable from just being able to have personal judgey feelings about media and about the people who liked it.

And opposing it does not mean in any way that we have to just stop thinking critically about the media we love, or that we have to act like media can never have any influence on people. We on the left tend to talk about sexism, racism, homophoia and so on as being influenced by culture and society. Well, guess what is part of society and culture? Fictional (and other kinds of) media. That's part of that societal programming we get. It's why you'll see some of it even from people whose parents very much tried to resist teaching them certain things, because they get it from media anyway. I was raised by strenuously feminist parents: it was the media that taught me what gender roles were and how I was expected to adhere to them.

--

Look, I realize it's a bit rich of me to say this, but people are not going to engage with your actual points if you cannot be more succinct.

[historicity-was-already-taken]

Welcome New Followers Post xiv

gonna make this bullet points of Things to Know because deadlines, but hi! welcome!

-this is not a jewish identity or a jumblr blog. i am a jewish person and a holocaust historian, so my content often overlaps with those realms of tumblr

-this is first and foremost a public history blog. public history and public historians do history for the public. we're passionate about transmitting complex historical topics from the academe to the people, and we're in constant (one-sided lmao) conversation with entities such as: film writers and producers, textbook writers, government bodies, journalists, etc regarding the construction of public memory, and the responsibilities that entails

-you don't have to ask if something is ok to reblog. I appreciate the thought, but unless I turn off reblogs or specifically ask people not to engage in certain ways, you're fine, that said:

-I do see and read all tags, replies, and rbs. I consider them public, and I often respond to them as new posts. If you want to engage with me and don't want others to see, then send me an ask which includes the words "please respond privately"

-You can should disagree with me and tell me when you think I'm wrong! Now, I won't lie, years of existing as a young-appearing hyper feminine (i like skirts and bows and sparkly shoes it is what it is) female, Jewish historian have made me defensive and bitey af, and I often misread neutral tones as "coming for me" tones and respond in kind. I apologize for when/if that happens to you, and I assure that, once I realize you're not coming at me in bad faith, I will feel horribly guilty.

-There is a learning curve here. I don't have any desire to gatekeep my blog (it's the opposite tbh), but I do use high level terms which can have multiple meanings in different contexts. I actively try to avoid using impenetrable academic jargon in this space, but sometimes that jargon is the only appropriate phrasing available. In those cases, I urge you to do some research and poke around and then, if you still don't understand what I mean, DM me.

-I am a white, American woman. I am actively anti-racist, and anti-bigotry in general, but there will be times when I do or say something clueless or privileged. If you see that and you have the energy, please tell me! I want this blog to be a welcome place for all,* and I appreciate call-outs as an opportunity for (un)learning.

-Building on that, this is an anti-bigotry space which I'd like people of all demographics and identities to feel comfortable engaging with.* That said, I don't play nice when some random corner of tumblr rolls up in here and barfs their shit all over my posts.

-I am a cringe millennial. I started this blog in 2011, when I was 21, had just finished college, before I'd heard back from any graduate schools, and before I had much resembling a career. I am currently 34. It's fine. But a lot of you are in your teens and 20s and are just starting on your careers, so like, please don't negatively compare yourselves to me or get self-deprecating when/if you want to contact me. We all learn and achieve at different paces and that's ok.

-My book, The Girl Bandits of the Warsaw Ghetto, will be released in Fall 2025. Trust me I will be screaming from the rooftops and you will not miss the announcements lmao.

-If I don't reply to an ask or a DM, it's not because I hate you. There are 800 reasons why I may not reply, and none of them are personal.

and finally

-I am not your Good Leftist Anti-Zionist Jew. I am not here as a rhetorical cudgel for left-wing anti-Semites who seek out Jews with politics similar to mine to then use as a weapon against other Jewish folks. Don't fucking do it.

*That does not mean that everything I post here will make you feel comfortable. History isn't supposed to make you feel comfortable. Sometimes, it can and should make you feel actively uncomfortable, because that discomfort/cognitive dissonance means you're learning (keep your cognitive dissonance temper tantrums tf away from me, tho). It does mean that I, as an individual, want you all to feel that this is a space where you are welcome to learn and ask questions.

i tried to use bullet points to keep this short, and i failed miserably. on brand.

[transmutationisms]

can you talk a bit more about weber (im refering to a post you made earlier today i think)? i know a bit about the protestant ethic theory but not really the historical context in which it was written nor how it's used today. thanks!

so, weber's argument is essentially that protestant (specifically calvinist and puritan) theology played a major causal role in the development of capitalism in northern europe following the reformation. his position was that protestant ethics, in contrast to catholicism, placed a high moral value on secular, everyday labour, but also discouraged the spending of one's wages on luxury goods, tithing to the church, or giving overmuch to charity. thus, protestants invested their money in business and commercial ventures instead, turning the generation of capital into a moral endeavour and venerating hard work and economic productivity as ways to ensure one's soul was saved (as the buying of indulgences was not an option for protestants).

this is a bad argument. at core it is idealist, subordinating an economic development to religious ideology. weber never explains how the actual, material economic changes he wants to talk about were effected by a set of ideas; he doesn't consider the possibility that the ideas themselves reflected in some way the material and economic context in which they were developed; he doesn't differentiate between protestantism as a causal factor in the development of capitalism, versus the possibility that capitalism and protestant conversion both resulted from some other factor or set of factors. <- these types of problems are endemic to 'history of ideas' aka 'intellectual history' because merely writing a history of the (learned, published) ideas circulating at a given time doesn't tell you jack about how and whether those ideas were actually implemented, how common people reacted to them or resisted them, what sorts of material circumstances the ideas themselves were formulated amidst, and so forth.

in the case of weber, it's very easy to poke holes in this supposed relationship between protestantism and capitalism. even in western europe alone, we could look at a country like france, which was quite catholic, never became predominantly or even significantly protestant, and yet also industrialised not long after, eg, the netherlands and england. we could also look at what historian michael kwass calls "court capitalism" in 18th-century france, which was a largely non-industrial form of capitalism that depended on the catholic king's central authority in order to ensure a return on investment. france at this time had a burgeoning luxury culture and a centralised, absolutist government that was closely entwined with the powerful catholic church—yet it also had economic development that is recognised as early capitalist, along with growing social and economic tensions between the nascent bourgeois and petit-bourgeois classes and the aristocracy. this is not even close to being the earliest example of capitalist or proto-capitalist economic development (some predates the reformation!), and again, this is within western europe alone—we could and should also point out that capitalism is not solely a european phenomenon and can and does coexist with other, radically different, religious ideology (i have problems with jack goody's work but this is something i think it can help elucidate).

weber argued that the 'spirit of capitalism' was no longer dependent on the protestant theology that had initially spawned it—but again, here we see issues with idealist methodologies in history. at what point, and how, does this 'spirit' become autonomous? what is it that has taken hold, if weber is not talking about the 'protestant ethic' itself and is also not interested in analysing the material changes that comprise capitalism except as effects of some underlying ideology? well, it's what he sees as a general shift toward 'rationalisation' and 'disenchantment' of the world, leading to an understanding of late 19th- and early 20th-century capitalism as a kind of spiritually unmoored servitude to mechanism and industry. this in turn relates back to weber's overall understanding of the legacy of the 'scientific revolution', which is another can of (bad) worms. there is a lot to say about these elements of weber's thought, but for starters the idea that europe was the progenitor of all 'scientific advancement', that it then simply disseminated such knowledge to the rest of the world (the apotheosis of the centre-periphery model, lmao), and that europe has become 'disenchanted', ie irreligious, as a result of such scientific advancement... is just patently bad analysis. it's eurocentric, chauvinistic, and simply demonstrably untrue in like twelve different ways.

anyway, when i see conservatives and reactionaries cite weber, i'm not surprised. his arguments are conservative (his entire intellectual paradigm in this text was part of his critique of marx and the premises of materialist / contextualist history). but when i see ostensible leftists doing it, often as some kind of dunk on protestantism (or christianity more generally, which is not even a good reading of weber's own understanding of catholicism), it's more irritating to me. i am not interested in 'leftisms' that are not materialist. weber's analysis is a bad explanation of how and why capitalism took hold; it doesn't even work for the limited northern european case studies he starts with because, again, idealist history fundamentally fails to explain how ideology itself creates material change. like, "some guy writes something down -> ??? -> everyone just agrees with him -> ??? -> stuff happens somehow" is not a good explanation of any phenomenon, lmao. if we are stuck on the idea that capitalism, a set of economic phenomena and real relations of production, is the result of ideology, then we will also be stuck trying to 'combat' capitalism on the ideological level. it's unserious and counterproductive. weber's analysis has retained an outsize position in the sociological historiography because it's an attractively simplistic, top-down, idealist explanation of both capitalism and protestantism that makes centuries worth of material changes to production forms into a kind of ideological coup ushering in an age of 'rationalism'. this is just not a text that tells us, leftists, anything politically useful. at best it is an explication of the internal psychological logics of (some) forms of protestantism in (some) places and contexts.

[kcwriter-blog]

Choice. Consequence. Blame.

Choice. Consequence. Blame. When I think about these concepts, I think about Solas and the blame he incurs for the choices he made. How do you apportion blame? How far back in time do we go? Those are interesting questions to me. My somewhat disorganized answers are under the cut. 

The concept of blame is universal. Someone makes a choice. That choice has consequences. If the outcome is good, the person is lauded. If the outcome is bad, the person is vilified. Context — the reasons why the person had to make that choice in the first place — is thrown out the window. 

How does this relate to Solas? Just about everyone agrees that his choice to create the Veil was responsible for what happened to the elves — even Solas. He is to blame. It’s a simplistic view. Choices are not made in a vacuum. 

What motivated Solas? He tells us. The Evanuris became corrupt. They lusted after power. They killed Mythal. We don’t know much beyond that, but we can theorize that Mythal was keeping the others in check. With her gone, they could pursue their own agenda. That would have destroyed the world.

Solas had to make a choice. He could do nothing, or he could do something. He chose to do something. 

Many people feel that Solas should have found an alternative to forming the Veil. That he didn’t look hard enough. Basically, he threw a temper tantrum over Mythal’s death and thoughtlessly did something he now regrets. Except that isn’t what happened.

Solas has a temper. We see that when he flambés the mages who killed Wisdom. He can be impulsive. We see that in his romance.

What people forget is that he is always able to master himself. It takes one word to keep him from roasting the mages. He doesn’t like it, but he does it.

In his romance he always stops himself before things can go too far. He didn’t create the Veil in a day. There was plenty of time for him to cool off. 

Solas tells us he considered alternatives. We don’t know what they were. We just know the consequences of those solutions were so dire, he chose to lock away his favorite place in the world — the Fade — instead. The wolf chews its leg off to escape the trap. 

Sometimes there are no good choices. Solas chose the best solution he could, given the information he had. The consequences? Bad.

Does that mean Solas should be the scapegoat? Is he 100 percent to blame for what happened to the elves?

I would argue no. What he did caused the elves to fight amongst themselves. It meant they could not protect themselves when Tevinter came calling. How the elves were treated once conquered, however, had nothing to do with Solas. 

Humans behaved toward elves the same way Europeans did when they encountered indigenous people on other continents. They could have done it differently. Solas didn’t make that choice for them. Humans decided that for themselves. 

Solas wasn’t responsible for the obliteration of Halamshiral. The Chantry was. Humans chose to force elves into slums, to take away their rights, to kill them if they felt like it.

Humans may not have taken immortality from the elves, but they did take away their language, history and cultural identity. Solas was not responsible for that. Humans bear part of the blame for what happened to the elves.

Which leads to my final point. How far back in time should we look when it comes to assigning blame? For most people, unless they are historians, probably not very far. Solas created the Veil. He is to blame. Simple. Except that it isn’t.

Would Solas have created the Veil if the Evanuris had not become corrupt? No, he wouldn't have.

The Evanuris are ultimately responsible for what happened to the elves. Solas did what he had to do, to prevent something worse from happening. He may view it as a mistake but it’s only a mistake if another, better solution was available to him, and he chose not to take it. 

The key to redeeming him might be helping him see that. 

[nordleuchten]

As a historian, do you ever think that you feel too much empathy for the subjects of your research? How do you keep a critical distance?

That is an interesting question, thank you for the ask! :-)

First of all, I am not a historian. I have no training in any shape or form in that field. I have my background in bio-science and a few months ago started adding some archeology courses for the sake of archaeogenetics and that is about it. I would never presume to call myself a historian and have no authority in that regard.

That aside, I know the question very well and often ask myself if I keep enough distance. Bceuase as far as I am concerned, empathy per se is not the problem. Fundamental human feelings like loss, grief, joy and hope are so universal that we can easily connect with the husband writing about the death of his wife or the mother writing about the birth of her first grand-child. The problem arises when we like them so much that we do not any longer hold them accountable because we do not want them to do, say or believe certain things.

The first thing to consider is that things are never black and white, never just good and evil. There is always more nuance and, in these cases, the human factor to consider. If a person you are researching is very clearly in one of these absolute categories, there is probably something missing. Reading other peoples analyses and opinions can also help getting new perspectives. I do not always agree with certain points, but it is refreshing to see how two people can very differently evaluate the same event/person/character trait. It also helps me, very generally speaking, to question my own worldview from time to time.

The last thing that I try to do as much as I can is sticking to the data that I have. If there is (reliable) evidence that a person did or said something, the this is most likely true – regardless of me liking it, regardless of people back then liking it. There are some things that are terrible and there are no “buts” and no excuses. You simply have to accept it or search for a new hobby.

I do not think that people (past and present) should be put on a pedestal. Not only is this very problematic from the point of scientific research and critical distance – but it also kills half the fun to be honest.

So yeah, that is my main approach, and I am always curious how other people do it and what I can learn from their approach. I hope you have/had a lovely day!

[anneapocalypse]

DAI Companion Styles: Josephine

Dragon Age Companion Styles Series

Next up by special request from @magneticmage is the lovely, the gracious, the refined, the stunning Josephine Montilyet, Ambassador to the Inquisition. (And yes, Josephine is an advisor, not a companion; yes this series is called “Companion Styles”; yes I’ve decided to just lump the advisors in with them and not change the name, and we’re all just going to have to live with it. 😉)

Disclaimer: I am not a fashion expert, dress historian, or professional designer! I'm just a gamer who likes to sew and has a casual interest in historical fashion, and a great interest in fantasy worldbuilding and the implications thereof, and that's where I'm coming from on these posts. I'd also love to hear thoughts from fans who have a more in-depth background in historical dress, textiles, and armor.

Also, we’re going to be talking about gendered clothing, so let me state for the record that I don’t believe clothing has any inherent gender. However we’re going to be talking about fashion in a cultural context here, and in the context of Thedas (and specifically Orlais), fashion is heavily gendered, and how characters engage with those gendered expectations can be personally and socially interesting.

As with Sera, I’m going to be focusing mostly on Josephine’s style from an in-universe perspective because that’s what I think is most interesting!

Much appreciation to @dragonagegallery, whose posts have made the canon review for this post much easier! The Art of Dragon Age Inquisition was also a great reference.

(Look at her. She even looks good in the Haven Chantry lighting. Nobody looks good in that. Iconic.)

Josephine is an Antivan-born noblewoman educated in Orlais, who trained and briefly worked as a bard before becoming disillusioned with that life and turning to a career as a diplomat instead. She has been working as the Antivan Ambassador to Orlais up until the point she joins the Inquisition as its Ambassador. Josephine is well-versed in the Grand Game and the culture of the Imperial Court and the upper class. If I were to say that Josephine is fashionable, I don’t think most people would disagree with me.

Yet her signature outfit is quite different from what we see on the fashionable upper class ladies of Orlais. There is a fair amount of Renaissance influence in Orlesian high fashion, but as others have pointed out, there's actually quite a lot of variation in sleeves, collar, and understructures (things like crinolines or panniers that give a skirt a certain volume and shape), drawing inspiration from centuries of European historical dress. Yet Josephine still stands apart from the fashions for Orlesian noblewomen, in some very interesting ways.

I should note at the start here that I am working at a bit of disadvantage with Josephine because we've never been to her country of origin in the games, and basically every Antivan character we've met so far has either been wearing armor, or the same styles as the country they're in at the time. (Also, most of them have been Crows, which Josephine is not.) So I can't comment on how Josie's look compares to what is fashionable in Antiva at the moment, because we don't know. Instead, I'll be talking about her style in the context of Orlais, which I think is fair since she went to school in Orlais and has been living and working there for quite a while now. Just bear in mind going forward that there is a whole sphere of potential influence that we can't really examine here.

But I do think there's also good reason to assume that Josephine takes inspiration from Orlesian fashion, starting with her color scheme. One of the first things that strikes me (and I think many viewers) about Josephine's outfit is "Wow, that's very gold." And it is! It's very gold and blue—colors directly associated with Orlais and with the nobility especially. We see gold and blue all over Orlais, from the capital to the countryside, and Josephine has deliberately chosen to dress herself in the colors that signify power and influence in this nation.

So let's take a look at the specific pieces she wears.

Josephine is wearing what appears to me to be a blouse of gold-colored silk satin with puffed sleeves and a tie-neck or possibly a matching scarf, dark-colored breeches ending just below the knee, a heavier sleeveless overdress or vest in blue brocade or damask (possibly even fine tooled leather; it's really hard to say) that ends at the knee, gold stockings, and black flat shoes. She wears a wide leather belt at the waist, with a gold satin sash tied over it. You can see some better images of Josephine's outfit in concept art and her character model in detail on @dragonagegallery.

This outfit is fascinating to me, and if you've read my post on Sera's style, you might have already guessed a few reasons why.

Given Josephine's basic silhouette, it's easy to look at her and assume she's wearing a dress, but she actually isn't. Even if she was, it would be a break from the Orlesian high fashions of the day, which favor floor-length skirts. But this isn't a dress at all. I would actually compare the blue vest to the leather vests we see in some of the Inquisitor armor variants, for mages and for rogues. The detailing on Josephine's makes it look finer, but it's a similar style, with a similar utility: it's easy to move in. Josephine's vest even has large visible pockets on the sides! And this goes all the way back to her concept art.

I think it's easy to get distracted by the big shiny gold sleeves and miss the fact that Josephine's outfit is actually very practical. In fact, you know what else it reminds me a little of?

Variants of this outfit appear in both Dragon Age 2 and Inquisition, and it's always been a non-gendered look. Note the knee breeches, the vest, and the puffed sleeves (though with much less extravagant gathers than Josephine's).

Josephine wears flat shoes, easy to walk in, comfortable for all-day wear. The wide leather belt echoes but does not exactly mirror the popular underbust corsetry seen on gowns; it is of a more practical style and material, and I'd imagine it could be good for back support for those long hours she spends at a desk. And in fact, the way Josephine wears it over her vest with the sash tied over the belt is not unlike the way a rogue Inquisitor wears their armor:

Though Josephine has left behind the life of a bard, I feel it's undeniable that that life has influenced her style. This is rogue fashion—practical but still stylish, easy to move in, easy to carry items you might need. Josephine is dressed as a rogue, but adapted to her current profession and personal tastes.

It’s all an intriguing choice for a diplomat! Because despite the clear Orlesian influence, Josephine’s look does not very much resemble any of what is fashionable for Orlesian noblewoman at the moment. No long full skirts, no outer underbust corsetry (though her belt does offer a cinched at the waist look), no deep V neckline (though her blue vest does create a similar shape over her blouse). When we compare Josephine to these looks, it’s a very different silhouette with mostly very different shapes. Even her puffed sleeves are puffed in different places than the fashions of high noblewomen (which seem to have the most volume at the elbow or lower right now).

But you know what we do see in Josephine’s outfit?

Breeches ending just below the knee. An outer garment that ends at the knee. Knee-high stockings. A flat black shoe. A shirt with sleeves puffed at the shoulders.

While Josephine’s look is ungendered in the context of a rogue, in the context of a noble this look is undeniably gendered, in a way that might not immediately register to our modern eye.

In the context of Orlesian culture, this is a Menswear-Inspired Look.

Now, unlike Sera, I do not believe Josephine to actually be wearing clothing designed for a man; given her station, this was all likely custom made for her. But in the context of Orlesian high fashion, there is some undeniably masculine styling going on here! And this isn’t about “women don’t wear pants”; many women in Dragon Age do, in fact, wear pants, all the time or in certain contexts; see above about rogue looks. Cassandra and Vivienne both have a skinny pants/leggings thing going on, and they both read more feminine in their styles to me, but they’ll get their own posts! With Josephine, it’s the specific styles of the pieces she’s wearing that bear similarities to men’s high fashion in Orlais. In a modern context, think a woman with long hair in a deliberately feminine style, wearing makeup, some statement jewelry, with a custom-tailored suit. Maybe with a few feminine accents on the suit itself; still definitely a suit. Josephine’s sleeves, for example, are not simply a copy of the male sleeve style; they’re taking inspiration but kind of doing their own thing. And of course, her hair is worn in a style that is practical, but still very elegant and feminine. It’s a Menswear-Inspired Look.

And I just love the fact that both of our F/F romance options in this game are kind of playing with gendered clothing in their personal style, but each very much in their own way.

I'm also fascinated by this one set of concept art called "Displaced Pilgrims" in The Art of Dragon Age: Inquisition, meant to represent "Fereldan and Orlesian refugees who arrived in Haven on a pilgrimage and were unable to leave following the disaster" (p. 75). One piece depicts an Orlesian woman dressed in what is from the hips up the same silhouette we see at the Winter Palace: exaggerated underbust corsetry that emphasizes the hips, a plunging V neckline with scalloped embellishment, a slightly puffed half-sleeve. But below the corset, the skirt has been cropped to mid-thigh and the woman wears a pair of breeches, stockings, and flat shoes with a rounded toe—strikingly similar to Josephine's lower silhouette. I can't recall ever actually seeing any NPCs wandering around Haven looking like this, which is a shame, because I love the concept of an Orlesian noblewoman blending masculine and feminine fashions in order to dress more practically for a journey into the mountains, while still appearing fashionable. I think this may be what Josephine is doing.

Josephine’s necklace is of interest to me as well, as it doesn’t bear a particular resemblance to anything I’ve found in Orlesian fashion; while we see a lot of necklines trimmed in gold, and a few necklaces, there’s nothing that looks like this piece. After a bit of research, I don’t think this is just a flashy piece of jewelry. Given the size of the chain and the way Josephine wears it draped over her shoulders, I think this might actually be a livery collar, also called a chain of office, that denotes her position as an ambassador!

Josephine’s whole look is very distinctive, and very put-together. In my opinion, this is a Choice. This is the kind of outfit that says, “I look like this on purpose,” and this from a woman who knows that a first impression may decide the course of a conversation that will affect the fate of nations. She is wearing a chain of office that immediately announces her station. She’s wearing expensive fabrics—again, I am interpreting that shiny gold fabric as silk and that is not cheap. Her vest shows fine detailing. Her clothing immediately says that she is both a person of means and holds a position of respect. Her color scheme speaks to her Orlesian connections. Her clothing conveys power and status. Yet her divergence from the styles of an Orlesian noblewoman also sets her apart. The practical elements of her look say, “I am no idle lady of leisure; I am capable; I am prepared for every occasion, even the unexpected.” And the roguish elements hearken back to her bard training, saying, “I know how the Game is played; I can be dangerous if I must be.”

Above all, I think this outfit speaks to Josephine’s self-assurance. She knows and understands social trends, but she is not beholden to them; she bends them to her tastes, rather than being bent by them. She acknowledges her past and what she has learned from it. She knows herself, and is in control of her own image.

I think this outfit does some pretty brilliant and inspired visual storytelling about Josephine Montilyet. I wouldn’t change a thing.

[nothingspecialherern]

After seeing the 4th episode i was really disappointed. The gateway arch and its museum have a colonial history much more far reaching than environmentalism, and for once I genuinely expected the directors and screenwriters to address it because the issue was brought up by the characters themselves. But then… it’s just about animals. It’s kept to animals. And every nuance for indigenous communities’ rights and sufferings under colonialism was just thrown out the window. 

I wanted to make it clear that Grover’s character stands as the reason for caring for animals; it makes sense for him to take the stance he does because he is a satyr, and as such, dies with the forest itself. He is, for all purposes, a spirit of the wild and cares for its inhabitants equally to humans. This isn’t the real issue. This is fine by itself. 

But why are the forests dying? Why is the wild disappearing? Pjo has always stuck to Pan disappearing as a reason-- again, not bad for fantasy reasons. But when they talk of it, Grover diagnoses the issue by pointing to humans as the ones who kill the environment. Annabeth agrees wholeheartedly, that humans are to blame for the environment around them. 

This is the real issue. The issue is thinking that all humans are predestined to hurt the environment; that the future itself is always opposed to nature. Not all humans would do that-- not all humans do that! The indigenous community does just fine as stewards to the nature around them and living with, not on, the land. Even ‘Land’ isn’t a good description; the world, the air, the water, the spirits, the animals, and humans are all included in ‘Land’ as a concept. That balance requires action and consequence, which have been carefully passed down through specific and important indigenous methods (oral history, artistic creation and appreciation, physical practice of methods, etc). 

My point is, the thing that Grover is frustrated with is not humans. It’s white settler colonialism. And I feel that the ones writing this script had every chance to bring it up as it pertains to indigenous communities-- or at the very least learn not to call settler colonialism the fault of all humans. It would have been so easy for Annabeth's reply to even be as simple as 'colonization' or something (and hey-- that response has no outright gore-- it's even a vocabulary word for middle schoolers). But they don’t. They leave us with a sense of shame for humanity, rather than showing us that the destruction of the wild only started in the Americas a few hundred years ago, and was done by white settlers and colonizers. That is the legacy of the Gateway arch.

I fully understand that genocide is not something we should bring up lightly, nor something that should be available to children of a certain age. As someone getting their MA in History and moving forward to be a part of the academic community, I also understand that even minute details of saying 'humans' instead of rightfully painting a fuller picture of ' white settler colonialism' can radically change how we perceive native peoples. We must be specific, and hold ourselves accountable.

Rick has done great work in learning as he goes about racism in writing, but he's just not there yet. Especially with his history of the description of Piper, it's not easy to say that he understands the indigenous community at all. And hey-- I have yet to meet another historian who does! I've been dragged into offices and told to move to a different college just because I cover indigenous history (even as a white American), so it's not easy to learn and grow in this area. But we must. And I think that talking about these issues now can pave the way for better representation and talks about legacy in the future.

[aedesluminis]

Today I finally decided to check something a friend told me a while ago. It was about Robespierre allegedly supporting and pushing for a full scale invasion of Italy, an idea that came from his younger brother Augustin and Napoléon.

The evidence for such claim is mentioned in Mary Young's biography on Augustin Robespierre. This is what Young has to say about it:

(page 142).

So not only was Carnot - someone who's considered responsible for turning a war of defense into one of conquest by robespierrist historians - unexpectedly against the idea of invading Piedmont, but Maximilien Robespierre, even more unexpectedly, was pushing for it.

And there's more: at page 154 - 155, Young mentions, quoting a work by J. Colin, that the reason why the CSP fell apart was because Robespierre interfered with war affairs to the point of alienating Carnot. While the latter was indeed against invading foreign countries, Robespierre, on the contrary, approved it and wanted it to be accomplished:

So it seems like the story about great advocate of peace, Maximilien Robespierre, is indeed just a story...!

Because of course a historian, whose book presents a foreword by Marisa Linton, wouldn't completely intentionally or unintentionally twist and misunderstand sources, right?

Right!?

Wrong.

The sources which Young uses to support her ideas are from Histoire de la campagne de 1794 en Italie by Gabriel Fabry vol 2, p. 438 and L’Éducation Militaire de Napoléon by J. Colin. Let's give them a quick look.

Fabry's histoire simply reports a CSP decree showing a certain eagerness in wanting to invade Piedmont. The excerpt, as you can see, doesn't include any signature.

(pages 438 - 439.)

Since Young said that Robespierre approved it, one would be inclined to think that it was Maximilien who wrote and signed the decree, with his signature being the first one. Of course the handwriting and signature of a CSP member isn't absolute proof of approval, but I usually see these two things used as arguments to show that a CSP member agreed; even by reputed historians; so I wasn't surprised to see Young making such a bold assumption. I then checked Aulard's Recueil and surprise surprise that decree was written and signed by Carnot only. No trace of Robespierre:

(I underlined in cyan the part similar to what Fabry reported, since Aulard made only a summary of the decree.)

Concerning the fact that Carnot was opposed to Robespierre's - yes, because Colin considers it as such - warmongering plans, the latter mentions a letter dated 26 Thermidor, in which Carnot complains about it:

I happened to find that letter in Correspondance générale de Carnot vol. 4, p. 575 - 576:

To sum up, it says that the plan comes from the mind of Augustin, but that it was the tyranny of his brother that inspired it.

Now, this is a letter written shortly after the fall of the Robespierrists, it doesn't take much to understand that this is purely thermidorian propaganda, not only because of its content, but also for the wording used. Moreover, it's not a personal letter, in which Carnot rambles with a friend or relative, it's an official one from the Committee of Public Safety.

Saying that Carnot didn't approve the conquest of Piedmont whereas Maximilien Robespierre did - I actually don't know if it was Augustin's idea, but this is not the point right now - is simply wrong since the decree of 19 floréal quoted above has been written and signed exclusively by him.

Thinking that a historian didn't care to double check their sources leading to such a misinformed mess is... truly appalling. This is proof of how one should always double check sources when possible, even if they come from historians we trust or appreciate!

Not that I personally trust or appreciate Young, considering that another of her bizarre claims based on dubious sources almost caused a sort of Thermidor in the community almost one year ago...

EDIT: Mary Young wasn't a historian, but a psychologist, so I did wrong in calling her as such. I do still think that someone of the reputation of Marisa Linton should have done a much better job in reviewing the book.

[ragingbookdragon]

Being on Kotallo’s left side meant it was easier for her to take care of aspects that his left arm would’ve usually done for him. This time, it meant passing bowls of food to the next person and scooping the contents onto his plate while he held the bowl. She hadn’t explicitly told everyone that she was pre-world, but then again, the last thing she wanted was to have to explain cytogenesis to people that fought with bows and arrows. She still entertained them with stories of war from her time, under the guise of an old-world historian. It wasn’t until she was cutting a piece of meat from a bone for Kotallo that she heard the snickering around them.

In listening to one of Hekarro’s stories, she continually dropped her gaze to the bottom right, watching as Kotallo struggled to cut a chunk of meat off the boar bone he had on his plate. After a few moments, he let out a quiet grunt and set the knife down; she reached over then and put two fingers on the bone and with the other hand, cut the chunk of meat off. While she was at it, she continued cutting the meat off until the bone was free, and she set her knife down, smiling at him.

“Thank you,” he murmured with a soft smile of his own, but it quickly fell when snickering echoed from the other side of the room and she looked over, seeing a few Tenakth nodding in their direction and laughing.

Anger welled up inside her and she couldn’t help but see the shame rise on Kotallo’s face; it was all it took to light an already shortened fuse—she wasn’t dumb, she saw how Kotallo’s fellow soldiers treated him. She cleared her throat, speaking out calmly, “Please forgive me for my interruption, Chief Hekarro, but it seems we have a more important story going on.” Everyone fell silent and she glared the warriors down. “What seems to be so funny in the Chief’s story that you are laughing so much?”

The soldiers looked away.

“No, please,” she encouraged. “It’s obviously much more important than his.”

The others seemed to be ashamed of the weight of their people’s gaze, but one in particular scoffed. “None of us need a babysitter to feed us.”

She blinked, looking at Kotallo. “I’m not feeding him. Last I checked, he was perfectly capable of bringing food to his mouth.”

“And cutting his food up for him like he’s a child?” he shot back. “A useless warrior in more ways than one.”

Kotallo looked at the floor and muttered, “Leave it, it’s fine.”

“It’s not,” she retorted and rose from her seat. “I’ve held my tongue long enough here.” Pointing at the warrior, she condemned, “You should be ashamed of yourself.” Turning to the others, she added, “In fact, all should be ashamed of how you treat this man.”

“The Ten would’ve—”

“The Ten would’ve considered Kotallo an honorable warrior and held in high regard!” she pulled her armor off until she was in her underclothes, her usually hidden cybernetic arms and legs exposed. “I lost my limbs in battle and yet I was never treated so despicably by my fellow soldiers-in-arms. No one shunned me because I lost my arms and legs. I was lifted up with honor, with dignity, with brotherhood.”

They watched her limbs in shock as she walked towards the group.

“And when my limbs were built and re-attached, I went back into battle, leading my team once more. And they trusted me beyond a shadow of a doubt. You say the Ten wouldn’t care about a wounded warrior?” she glowered at them. “I am the Ten. I fought against the machines before the world went to hell. And we didn’t fucking treat our disabled men and women like dirt. We didn’t fucking think of them like broken weapons with no use. We treated them with respect. With dignity. They were heroes to us.”

She pointed at herself. “I have honor. I am still everything I was before I was maimed. And if you look at your fellow brother and sisters who are maimed like you do Kotallo? You don’t deserve to call yourself a descendant of the Ten. You’re a fucking poor excuse, and my people, my Ten, would be disappointed in your actions and treatment.”

Looking at the Tenakth around, she lifted her head and spoke with fervor. “You hold strength as the highest regard in your society, but you people don’t even know what that entails.” She gazed upon them with anger. “You are called to uplift your fellow man—maimed or not. You are called to support them in times of pain and turmoil. You do not turn your back on them and look upon them with shame.”

She glanced at Kotallo, a warmth in her eyes. “He is more worthy of being called a Ten than any man or woman here.”

Kotallo gaped at her, mouth slack, eyes wide, and silence filled the room as she pulled her clothes back on and sat down with him, pushing at his place. “Eat. Or it’ll get cold.”

Slowly, he closed his mouth and nodded, looking at his plate, and when she lifted her head and caught Hekarro’s eyes, a pride shown in them as he continued on with his story.

[infiniteglitterfall]

I'm so fucking done right now

I have a friend. We're going to call her "AAAAAAA!!!!"

AAAAAAA!!!! and I have been friends for more than twenty years. LONG before I started converting to Judaism.

She grew up in an area Jewish enough to get the high holy days off. She has as many Jewish friends as I do. She is more knowledgeable about Jewish stuff than anyone else I know who isn't Jewish. To the point that I've sometimes thought about asking her why she doesn't convert.

Sure, she's a staunch atheist. So nu?

I don't think we'd ever had occasion to talk about I/P politics before a couple of years ago. We immediately discovered we had uhhhhh. Very opposing views. We both backed off of what was clearly going to be a charged and messy discussion.

I didn't know enough yet to try anyway. All I knew, mainly, was that (1) Jews are the indigenous people of Israel and (2) both Israel and Palestine have Done Bad Shit!

That's a very, very, very inadequate understanding. But I did feel pretty confident that point #1 contradicted her apparent stance, which was more "Israel is the one that has Done Bad Shit."

We backed off for a couple of years. She would occasionally mention how much she wished I would read Edward Said, so we could talk about him.

She is, to her credit, totally against Hamas's attack. But we conflict on most other issues. And they're so charged for her that we can't really talk about any of them.

It turns out that the reason they're so charged is that her niece got yelled at and called out for "being an antisemite" for supporting BDS in college, and it was traumatizing for her.

In other words, she and her family stopped at "I had really really big feelings of shame and fear about this," and chose not to see "and I tried to find out why this marginalized group was saying that" as an option.

And also, AAAAAAA!!!!'s sister, a local elementary school principal, went through a stressful time recently for similar reasons: Jewish families were accusing her and/or her school of being antisemitic, and one (1) family left.

AAAAAAAA!!!! set the boundary, with me, that we should not talk about the definition of antisemitism, or antisemitism related to the protest movement, after I posted a list of things on Facebook that the ADL is charging the Berkeley Unified School District with.

Including that K-12 students have been saying and/or writing, "Kill the Jews," "Jews are stupid," "Of course it was the Jews," and telling Jewish peers, "I don't like your people."

My friend is angrily convinced that "such accusations are a flood of SEWAGE smeared on protesters, professors, etc. I am not saying there is no antisemitism, though Berkeley is a very weird place for it to crop up in the from-zero-to-a-thousand way it is described. Of course there can be a) isolated incidents that hit fucking hard in these circumstances, and b) deliberate elisions between, again, being against what Israel is doing, and having that portrayed as being antisemitic."

/looks at the camera/

All of this is just context for what I came here to say 😅

I WAS TONIGHT YEARS OLD WHEN I FOUND OUT WHAT EDWARD SAID WROTE, AND WHAT THE ENTIRE FUCK. FUCK THAT DUDE TWICE.

Constantine Zurayk's fiction that the “Arab nation” suffered the Nakba didn’t survive for long. [By 1967,] the meaning of the Nakba had already changed as Palestinian activists and historians began depicting the events of 1948 exclusively as a tragedy for their own people.

...The most influential of those [new books that framed it that way,] particularly for audiences in the West, was Edward W. Said’s The Question of Palestine, published in 1979.

Said, a popular Columbia University English professor [OH HELLO] and a member of the Palestinian National Council, was something of an icon in liberal intellectual circles because of his earlier book, Orientalism. In that work, Said framed the history of colonialism in the Arab and Islamic world within a system of Western racialist thought.

I'm just gonna guess that he didn't go back farther than 50 years. Because before that point, you get 1,300 years or so of Arab and Islamic colonialism, and I don't know how it would make sense to frame that within a system of Western racialist thought.

In The Question of Palestine, the author argued that the game was stacked against the native Palestinians in favor of the white Zionists, because of the same dominant racist ideologies.

THAT'S HIM, OFFICER. THAT'S THE GUY.

That's what my friend has been trying to get me to read for three years? An ahistoric mess that pretends Jews were actually white supremacists at the time that white supremacy was actively trying to wipe us out?

I'M SO TIRED, YOU GUYS.

Said denounced “the entrenched cultural attitude toward Palestinians deriving from age-old Western prejudices about Islam, the Arabs, and the Orient. This attitude, from which in its turn Zionism drew for its view of the Palestinians, dehumanized us, reduced us to the barely tolerated status of a nuisance.”

Yeah, THAT'S what happened.

“Certainly, so far as the West is concerned,” Said continues, “Palestine has been a place where a relatively advanced (because European) incoming population of Jews has performed miracles of construction and civilizing and has fought brilliantly successful technical wars against what was always portrayed as a dumb, essentially repellent population of uncivilized Arab natives.”

This was a harsh and distorted view of the Zionist movement.

I said I was so fucking done, and what I MEANT was that I was so fucking angry, and NOW I'M TEXTING HER SUPPORTIVELY ABOUT OTHER STUFF WHILE I WRITE THIS.

I just.

Please drag Edward Said for me or otherwise Go Off. Thank you

[theantonian]

Mark Antony's Funeral Oration for Julius Caesar

Mark Antony's Funeral Oration over the Corpse of Caesar | ca. 1906 Oil on canvas, Robert Seuffert.

The Greek historian Appian of Alexandria (c.95-c.165) has included several speeches in his History of the Civil Wars, all of them being own compositions. However, the speech of Antony is not a composition, but a report of what was said. It is a tempting idea that Appian's account is an accurate rendering of the words that were spoken during Caesar's burial.

When [Caesar's father-in-law] Piso brought Caesar's body into the Forum, a huge number of armed men gathered to guard it. Antony had been chosen to deliver the funeral oration as a consul for a consul, a friend for a friend, and a kinsman for a kinsman and so he again pursued his tactic and spoke as follows:

"It is not right, my fellow-citizens, for the funeral oration in praise of so great a man to be delivered by me, a single individual, instead of by his whole country. The honors that all of you alike, first Senate and then People, decreed for him in admiration of his qualities when he was still alive, these I shall read aloud and regard my voice as being not mine, but yours."

He then read them out with a proud and thunderous expression on his face, emphasizing each with his voice and stressing particularly the terms with which they had sanctified him, calling him "sacrosanct", "inviolate", "father of his country", "benefactor", or "leader", as they had done in no other case. As he came to each of these Antony turned and made a gesture with his hand towards the body of Caesar, comparing the deed with the word.

He also made a few brief comments on each, with a mixture of pity and indignation. Where the decree said "Father of his country", he commented "This is a proof of his mercy", and where it said "Sacrosanct and inviolate" and "Whoever shall take refuge with him shall also be unharmed", he said "The victim is not some other person seeking refuge with him, but the sacrosanct and inviolate Caesar himself, who did not snatch these honors by force like a despot, indeed did not even ask for them. Evidently, we are the most unfree of people because we give such things unasked to those who do not deserve them. But you, my loyal citizens, by showing him such honor at this moment, although he is no more, are defending us against the accusation of having lost our freedom."

And again he read out the oaths, by which they all undertook to protect Caesar and Caesar's person with all their might, and if anyone should conspire against him, those who failed to defend him were to be accursed. At this point he raised his voice very loud, stretched his hand out towards the Capitol, and said, "O Jupiter, god of our ancestors, and ye other gods, for my own part I am prepared to defend Caesar according to my oath and the terms of the curse I called down on myself, but since it is the view of my equals that what we have decided will be for the best, I pray that it is for the best."

Noises of protest came from the Senate at this remark, which was very plainly directed at them. Antony calmed them down, saying by way of retractation, "It seems, fellow-citizens, that what has happened is the work not of any man, but of some spirit. We must attend to the present instead of the past, because our future, and indeed our present, is poised on a knife-edge above great dangers and we risk being dragged back into our previous state of civil war, with the complete extinction of our city's remaining noble families. Let us then conduct this sacrosanct person to join the blest and sing over him the customary hymn and dirge."

So, saying he hitched up his clothing like a man possessed, and girded himself so that he could easily use his hands. He then stood close to the bier as though he were on stage, bending over it and straightening up again, and first of all chanted praise to Caesar as a heavenly deity, raising his hands in witness of Caesar's divine birth and at the same tune rapidly reciting his campaigns and battles and victories, and the peoples he had brought under his country's rule, and the spoils he had sent home. He presented each as a marvel and constantly cried "This man alone emerged victorious over all those who did battle with him."

"And you", he said, "were also the only man to avenge the violence offered to your country 300 years ago, by bringing to their knees the savage peoples who were the only ones ever to break into Rome and set fire to it."

In this inspired frenzy he said much else, altering his voice from clarion-clear to dirge-like, grieving for Caesar as for a friend who had suffered injustice, weeping, and vowing that he desired to give his life for Caesar's. Then, swept very easily on to passionate emotion, he stripped the clothes from Caesar's body, raised them on a pole and waved them about, rent as they were by the stabs and befouled with the dictator's blood. At this the people, like a chorus, joined him in the most sorrowful lamentation and after this expression of emotion were again filled with anger.

After the speech, other dirges accompanied by singing were chanted over the dead by choirs in the customary Roman manner, and they again recited his achievements and his fate. Somewhere in the lament Caesar himself was supposed to mention by name those of his enemies he had helped, and referring to his murderers said as if in wonder,

To think that I actually saved the lives of these men who were to kill me.

Then the people could stand it no longer. They considered it monstrous that all the murderers, who with the sole exception of Decimus had been taken prisoner as partisans of Pompey, had formed the conspiracy when instead of being punished they had been promoted to magistracies, provincial governorships, and military commands, and that Decimus had even been thought worthy of adoption as Caesar's son.

When the crowd were in this state, and near to violence, someone raised above the bier a wax effigy of Caesar - the body itself, lying on its back on the bier, not being visible. The effigy was turned in every direction, by a mechanical device, and twenty-three wounds could be seen, savagely inflicted on every part of the body and on the face. This sight seemed so pitiful to the people that they could bear it no longer. Howling and lamenting, they surrounded the senate-house, where Caesar had been killed and burnt it down, and hurried about hunting for the murderers, who had slipped away some time previously.

[new-tella-us]

Me- Brain, it’s late. Let’s go to bed.

Brain- Okay but let’s listen to oooooone last song.

Me- Fine…

(Listens to the one song that would make my brain go “What if King Erik?”)

I swear to y’all, this wasn’t supposed to happen.

Erik wasn’t supposed to get a mildly good king ending. This is probably not canon to my universe… probably. But I’ll at least let the brainrot do its thing.

And I’m gunna be talking about this like a tired, rambling historian for the vibes.

SO, the golden era is dead. At this point of history, the last royals of the golden era, Raestrao and Istorae are nowhere to be found so it’s time for a new era to begin starting with the second son of the late Demon Lord, Uzaeris. This era is often called the “Ruby Era” or the “Animal Uprising” depending on who you’re talking to. For the sake of respect, we will be calling it the “Ruby Era”.

A lot of people didn’t like this change at the time for 3 major reasons. 1) Some people didn’t want any of the Demon Lord’s sons on the throne and instead wanted the Rebel Queen, Ezaeur but… she hasn’t been seen either. Most people assumed she was killed in the war. 2) Many still wanted Istorae’s line to continue and the golden era to resurface but that ain’t happening. 3) Racism. Aka some people didn’t like that Uzaeris, a part animal demon, was going to be their king. Too bad for them though because he’s turning out to be a very powerful and pretty good king all things considered.

Most in his alliance would report him as charming and likable. The trade deals he made were as fair as they could be while still benefiting his kingdom, leaving a long line of improvements in agriculture that affect even the modern day. He’s managed to unite many kingdoms over his reign with just diplomacy. And over all, if you can get over the previous three reasons not to like him, you’ll find that he was generally cool to be around. However, a diplomat he was but a pushover he was not. Over the years there have been a few rebellions from those three reasons plus some people who didn’t feel like they were being benefited enough but every rebellion was lost and pretty swiftly too. Every rebellion ended in one of three ways: imprisonment, banishment or execution. Of course, being a diplomat, Uzaeris was known for using the former two far more than any ruler before him which only strengthened his reputation as a strict but fair king.

Now, let’s talk about the lovely lady clinging to his shoulder. As a human in the Demon World, she stood out from the start. She has no official name (only really being called “Human” by most and “Princess” by the king), age (though we can assume she was around the king’s age. Maybe slightly younger) or place of origin and some even suspect that she’s not fully human; she only started appearing in the records around when Uzaeris became king. Some relate the correlation between the time the four princes disappeared for 10 years with the time she started appearing in records and wonder if there was any reason for that correlation though nothing is set in stone.

If you tried to research what role this girl played during the Ruby Era, you would get a word that could vaguely be translated into either “Harem Girl” or “Courtesan” neither being fully accurate. It would be more accurate to call her a harem girl, she was really only for the king after all; though records show that she was far higher in the social ranks than most harem girls at the time, hence the confusion with the word “Courtesan”. Even so, she wasn’t treated like a harem girl. Most paintings and records depict the relationship between the king and this girl as loving equals rather than the massive power imbalance that should have been there instead. A common theory is that these two were lovers but, for safety reasons, she was called a harem girl. Most people at the time wouldn’t accept a human queen after all. Though, once again, nothing is set in stone.

Truly these two were an elusive pair, seemingly popping out of nowhere and eventually; when a new ruler was settled and decided, they disappeared back into nowhere.

[mythserene]

LEWISOHN: Let's crowdsource this bastard.

Check a footnote.

Whether you heroically tear straight into him like @wingsoverlagos or you find one thing like @delightfullyatomicfest did, it matters! What I hoped for and imagined from the beginning was some sort of crowdsourced work. There is too much for any one person, and one of the biggest problems with Beatles' sources is that they're not all equally easy to get to for everyone. And although this has become personal for me, it is an objectively huge problem for all Beatles fans and scholars that the man who has collectively been called the Beatles historian has—and I cannot say this clearly enough—BEEN JUST MAKING SHIT UP.

He literally ends ‘Tune In’ with a fabricated line that he sources to John Lennon. (!!!)

(Which I might not have realized for ages—if ever—if not for this @wingsoverlagos post)

Lewisohn has no shame.

And while it may seem like we are screaming into the void right now, I will tell you that we are not. I fear jinxing anything so I won't say more now, but our work is not in vain. People are paying attention. How can they help but pay attention? It's too shocking a betrayal. Too great a breach of trust. It has become overwhelming and impossible to ignore, and it has happened so quickly. Just by a few people taking the time to do the work.

And what is obvious now is that if you take a piece of source material that's referenced and go through it you will find butchered and fabricated quotes. And whether you do it that way or just check a footnote that interests you PLEASE TELL ME what you find! 🙏🏻

I am trying to gather all this up in one place. An ammo dump, if you will. If you want credit, tell me how you want to be credited, linked to, and any combination thereof. (I don't like taking credit for things I don't find, anyway.) But either shoot me a message or @ me or all of the above so we can collect all together and it can have the cumulative effect it deserves. (I will respond, but sometimes I am gone for a few days at a time, and occasionally for up to a week. I always come back, though.) #crowdsourcelewisohn

I have also set up an email for collecting funky footnotes: exactwords.lewisohn@gmail.com (At this point I'm only checking this once a week.)

If you look, you almost certainly will find.

If you have any Beatle magazines or Pete Best's book, "Beatle!" you could be a superhero. (One chapter of Best's book is available online, but I haven't been able to find the rest.) Or if you have any less-available source material I am urging you—begging you—to jump in and check some footnotes. With Lewisohn as bold as he is in the easily searchable things just imagine the license he's taking in the rest. But whether hard to find or commonplace, check a source. It adds up and it kind of feels good to uncover some bullshit.

For your edification and motivation I am adding a clip — lightly edited to take out some Lewisohn devolutions (so here's the queued up link) — of Mark Lewisohn bragging and basking in the praise of being called a historian who should be ranked alongside the great LBJ biographer Robert Caro, of him saying that the Beatles should appreciate anyone writing a biography of this high a standard about them, and a momentary lapse into deep resentment that they don't appreciate him. And then he gives his little speech about the Beatles being about “truth with a capital ‘T’” and how he is writing a biography to match that truth.

“Truth” is a word Mark Lewisohn needs to keep out of his mouth. If you feel like he should be struck by lightening for uttering it, that is exactly what I am talking about.

We are that lightening.

Honestly, what AKOM started is so awesome. It gave this an outlet. (And I still go back and listen for both source material and motivation.)

It's sickening to listen to this now. Sickening because Lewisohn has been making us all his dupes for far too long. We have been his marks, and there's almost nothing I hate more than being conned.