I know you don't normally answer questions, or at least I haven't seen to many. But I was curious as to your stance on historical figures that were queer but not of moral standing. Ex. Alexander Hamilton was most likely bisexual or something of that configuration, but was also a slave owner. I see a lot of lgbt+ historical icons, who are "Disqualified" because of something they did. I was just wondering how you felt about it (1/2)
(2/2) Personally, I think their being a lgbt+ historical figure should be acknowledged, but so should their downfalls so they won’t become an icon per se. I’m not really too sure how to verbalize my thoughts, but I hope that was somewhat coherent. And I’m just wondering what you as queer historians have to say on the matter
First I want to say that you did a great job of verbalizing your thoughts and I really appreciate you coming to our project to discuss this because we do have some thoughts and this is an interesting topic overall.
In discussing her life we note this concept briefly saying:
“We know there have been queer people who are horrible, in fact we need to look no further than one generation above Annemarie herself. Her mother, a queer woman who actively supported Nazi’s. Queer history is not clean. It is not simple, or easy, or always on the right side of the battle. Like all of history it is complex.”
And today actually I saw someone do the exact thing you were talking about in a post saying:
So this is a real thing, and it is actually something we have dealt with a lot in our writing. In the post above I don’t think the person was seriously saying that we should pretend this historical figure isn’t queer, I believe from context and tone it is probably just a person who is venting and wants their community to be full of unproblematic people.
But that very idea, even in a joking tone, is harmful and we should unpack it and want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to do so.
So to begin, this phenomenon has many origins but one of the big ones is probably peoples desire to turn history into a series of Great Men. And while this theory is not directly discussing what we are about to, we believe it to be a factor in the problem. Because in the end both of these problems find their roots in attempts to simplify complex concepts/events/people in history.
We want history to be easy, we want to look at a person and say “this person is Bad and I am in no way connected to them because I am Not Bad” but that isn’t what history is.
History is endlessly complex, confusing, and at times frustrating. And these are often seen as “bad” emotions so we try to squish history down into more bite sized concepts so we don’t have to feel them. Make history into this battle between good and evil, where everything is simple and easily understood.
So when people look into the history of a community, they use its members to “prove” whether the community was good or bad. Which leads to communities trying to repress the more nasty parts of their history.
And Making Queer History is not immune to this. In fact it is something I often think about, and have in many cases failed in. I am a writer, and I do my best writing when I care about the people/subject I am discussing. So I am more likely to choose to write about someone I like than someone I don’t.
An example of this happened last week actually. I had been thinking about this exact concept and to attempt to stop it from affecting our project too much I tried to write about Salvador Dali. A man from history I hate. And I cried.
Legitimately, I got so mad while researching this man I began crying, and I ended up writing about someone else.
And while I did not actively deny that Salvador Dali was queer, I did in a small way contribute to the problem that leads people to do that kind of thing.
We want to see the good side of a community we are a part of because if the community isn’t perfect our minds try to simplify that into the community is bad. So many people either react by deciding the community is bad, or by rejecting the person who stops the community from being perfect from the community, and neither of those responses are healthy.
So yes, you are right. Denying that the “bad people” in history could have also been queer, is not accurate or good for the community as a whole. It is denying facts, it is removing nuance, and it is damaging how we view ourselves as a community.
Because when we remove these people from our history we absolve ourselves of their problems. In the case of Alexander Hamilton, we remove a racist man from our communities history because we don’t want to think about how our community has had (and still has) a problem with racism.
I like to say that just because there have been queer people who have done bad things in history, does not mean that being queer is what made them bad. But it also goes the other way, just because queer people have done amazing things in history, does not mean that we are as a whole an amazing community.
We have problems that we need to address from our history that have carried on into our present, and pretending they were not a part of our history is just another way of denying they could be a part of our present. So we need to look at these “bad people”, so we can address the problems that we had, and how we in our community can try to prevent those problems in the future.
The queer community is not inherently good or bad, because the queer community is made up of people, and each person has negative aspects and positive aspects that they bring to the table. And the community is just in the end a jumble of all of these positive and negative aspects. And the sooner we acknowledge that the sooner we can move to the next step making an environment that supports change and growth with education, and positive and negative reinforcement, instead of just throwing every person who does something wrong out of the community.
There have been great people in our community, and there have been horrible people, and we need to look at people on either side of the spectrum, and in the middle. Because history is endlessly complex, confusing, and at times frustrating, but that is a good thing because humans are too.
In case you haven't seen it already you should go to the 2nd to last picture of shirtsforacure on ig and see the little comment Frank left. I feel like you'd be interested since you are so far up Frank's ass ya know
I haven't seen s:hc yet because I can't afford it but your trans Peter headcanons give me life!
thank you!! I hope you get the chance to see the movie soon but here have some more headcanons in the meantime:
- peter chose his own name, making the significance of him choosing benjamin as his middle name 1000% more significant. he chose to name himself after ben - and he learned what a man should be from his uncle
peter: is it okay with you if I have ben as my middle name? it’s okay if it’s not, I just- you’re the type of man I want to be, uncle ben.
ben: *choked up* t-that’d be fine, son
- peter’s two biggest models for masculinity when he was realizing he was trans is ben and ned, so like, toxic masculinity whom? peter is so comfortable in his masculinity, because ben told him that being a man wasn’t anything biological, it was who you chose to be and always doing the right thing. and ned is just an endless source of comfort & support, “hey ned is cuddling masculine?” “hell yeah it is, come over here buddy”
- so like, ned used to borrow peter clothes when he was first transitioning, because ned’s clothes were loose and baggy on peter and even now ned keeps a spare t shirt in his locker for if peter feels dysphoric at school. it happens less and less now, but peter always feels such a sense of comfort wearing ned’s clothes, and probably sleeps in one of ned’s old shirts as pajamas.
- aunt may re-stitched name tags into all of peter’s clothes with his new name after he told her that he was a boy, and they all say ‘peter parker’ and he loves it
- MJ only ever knew peter as peter, because she moved to the area after his transition, so he’s actually really nervous to tell her that he’s trans because he likes her, he like-likes her, and he works himself into a nervous caffeine-felled jitter trying to tell her and ask her out -
to which MJ laughs and replies, “Oh, you’re telling me that you’re trans? I thought you were finally going to tell me that you’re spider-man. Come on, peter, did you really think I’d care?”
“You’re Peter Parker. That’s who you are to me. my friend, and the only hero that matters around here, and the guy who’s gonna pick me up on friday night at 8:30, okay?”
You know what I haven't seen much of? Sidon in a bad mood. May I request a scenario where Sidon's had a pretty awful day full of work and duties and meetings; and that night when he goes to see his s/o he just pulls them aside and is basically just all whiny and tired and just wanting their attention? Pretty please?
“So your highness, about news to the east-”
“Sire, we need your approval on our agricultural plans-”
“What do you think our training for the guards should be-”
“This should be the second to last stack of paperwork sire. Only 100 pages!”
There were days where he was patient, really there was! Today was just not one of those days. As he did his best to not pout or stomp out of the room, Sidon grumbled his way through the castle. Thank goddess it was late and there was no one to see him- it is improper for a prince to be slouching and borderline stomping his way across the floor.
Hugs. Kisses. Peaceful silence, or loving words, he wasn’t going to complain- but for the love of all things sane, why did his sweet (Name) have to be so far away right now-
“-thank you so much, I appreciate the gesture.” Treasure, his sweet Pearl! Nearly sprinting around the corner, he saw them there, sweetly smiling- and talking to someone else… Nope. No. No no no no no no-
“Ah, Sire! How fare you this evening?”
“Well, well- (Name) is needed elsewhere at the moment. Thank you.” Without hesitation, (Name) was up in his arms with sweet confusion on their face, and within the moment they were in their room.
“Sidon,that was very rude! Go apologize-”
“Beloved, please, I haven’t seen you all day and then there was all the paperwork- I promise I’ll apologize tomorrow, but pleeeeeease for now can I have some kisses? Please..?”
…Sigh. He really was childish sometimes. Sidon nearly bounced up when he felt their lips on him. “Of course. But you owe him an apology tomorrow in the morning.”
“I promise…” With that, he (and them, by extension), fell onto the bed, and within the moment, his head was in their torso, his arms around as he curled around them. And (Name)? (Name) was trying their hardest to not laugh at his antics as they kissed his forehead and saw his head tail swing happily from the much needed affection.
It’s hilarious that some anti-bootleg people are saying “I’m not privileged! I’m just saving money to go! And I’ll still have to drive, like, 4 hours!!” oh no…. how terrible it must be….. four hours….. and here I am, continents away, thinking I was so unfortunate….. oh you have opened my eyes……
smh there isn’t even a confirmation that it’s gonna be filmed, just an old article from last year that said it might be filmed:
“I said we WANT to film the show with this cast before the year is out. That’s all I said. There are no plans for anything yet.”— Lin-Manuel Miranda (@Lin_Manuel) October 5, 2015
come on guys. stop telling us to wait for something that probably isn’t even going to happen. you can guilt-trip me into buying tickets (and I will, with pleasure) when they tour in Armenia. thanks.
Could you please help me. There are two characters and one can't forgive himself for something he didn't do, while the other one is already at peace with it because she had mental health issues and faced her whole past and is alright.ohh and the two haven't seen each other for 5 years because the first character didn't dare to see the other one because of the imense guilt. Thank you so much love ❤
1) “Dear god, stop apologizing,” she said. “If you’re really sorry, stop making it about you. I already said I forgive you.”
2) “You’re five years late to apologise. I’m over it.”
“I want to make amends.”
“Then you should have done that five years ago,” she said relentlessly. “I don’t want to keep thinking about it just to make you feel better and I don’t need you to fix it. I fixed myself just fine, thanks.”
3) “You obviously haven’t forgiven me.”
“You’re doing that thing where you tell me what I’m feeling again.”
4) She sighed, looking at his guilt-wrecked face. “I don’t hate you,” she said. “But I think if you’ve been avoiding me for five years because of your guilt, you’re a coward. You weren’t the one who got hurt. But hey, I guess not doing stuff, like picking up the phone, is still kind of your MO, huh?”
He flinched even though there was no bite in her tone.
5) “I hope you find a way to forgive yourself, I really do. But I can’t do that for you.”
**1/2 Hello Steph! There is a thing that I haven't seen anyone mentionig, but it still hunts me. In TST, where john and mary get simultaneusly two messages from Sherlock, three bizzare things happen. One, they seem to convey different meaning, Mary's looking somewhat like a challenge, or a threat. Two, the "you go, no you go" is way to extended, and John is acting strangely, considering he is the one who should "come immediatelly" and Mary the one who should be protected? But that is not all.
**2/2 The third, and weirdest thing is that after that oh-so-dragged scene, we see Mary leaving without being told THE ADDRESS. I have watched the couch scene a lot of times and while John may have seen Mary’s message, Mary hasn’t seen John’s. SO, HOW DOES SHE KNOW WHERE TO GO? And why John does inform (Lestrade?) after his -belated- departure? Isn’t there an emergency? Why is that scene even shown, but for us to wonder the previous scene’s fuckiness? Am I wrong? Have i neglected something?
all that seems like an elaborate trap for mary to me, but i can be wrong
I’m assuming you wanted anonymous since you turned it on for two of the three parts, LOL, and assuming that last bit is part of this ask, since it was immediately above these two parts.
Okay, so yeah, I’ve seen discussion about this scene in the past and at how weird it is because Sherlock is cryptic with Mary, and not John. GIVEN that I believe in a John’s Alibi Theory, I think that this is a detail that they had to fit their story around – text messages ARE admissible evidence, and in an episode so heavily focusing on the texting aspect, I think that is a clue that all of the texts actually ARE real. No matter how “nice” they make Mary in their “story”, John and Mary’s texts still remain, so they have to somehow work that cryptic text into their narrative. I think it’s deliberately cryptic because the real text IS cryptic, and YES, I think it was a trap for Mary. That WHOLE aquarium scene seems – pardon the pun – FISHY to me: Lestrade, Mycroft and John just pop out of no where, Mary’s miraculous change in he physics, the peekaboo cops… nothing seems right. I do believe it’s an altered narrative, being told and possibly retold (with the repeating-but-slightly-different scenes) as an explanation to take the blame away from John for killing Mary.
Do I think she’s dead? Maybe yes, maybe no? I don’t know right now. I’m leaning mostly to YES, but the posthumous DVD’s and the phoney-as-fuck shooting are what’s throwing me off. I’m starting to wonder if John and Sherlock somehow / some reason took the TD-12 drugs which caused John to hallucinate and Sherlock to start overdosing again. I don’t know. Regardless, YES, I do think that the aquarium is a staged and doctored event, and that the ambiguous text from Sherlock to Mary is a clue that she is still the villain that we knew her to be.
This is most probably a very silly question but have you seen torchwood? I've just finnished series one and honestly I'm in love with it and getting to see Jack's complex character out of doctor who is just SO good! Do you have any favorite characters or episodes i should look out for? (Episode 12 is my favorite, so far anyway) Much love ❤️☕️🐉
It’s not a silly question!
I’ll be honest, as someone who is overall a big fan of RTD’s writing, I’m not particularly fond of Torchwood on the whole. Granted, it’s been quite a long time since I’ve gone through the episodes so I may feel differently about it if I were to go through it again now, but the program didn’t have nearly as much of an impact on me as his work on s1-4 of DW or the Sarah Jane Adventures — with the exception of TW: Children of Earth (series 3), which was a complete gut-punch in the best and worst ways. It’s certainly not something I tend to rewatch often because of how heavy it is (although I have been planning to rewatch it sometime soon, since it has been a few years since I’ve gone through it and what the hell why not let PCap as John Frobisher kill my soul again).
You can take that as both a warning and a strong recommendation!
But I know there are people who really do love the show and the characters overall and I’m glad you’re enjoying going through it yourself! :)
What if Gansey gets into an accident, what if he's horribly disfigured and I have to identify him and all that remains are his private parts. And I'm standing there, and I'm saying, "Sorry Officer, I can't help you, because no, I haven't seen his penis." And then boom he's buried in an unmarked grave.
hello. i was wondering how fantastic beasts is whitewashed? I'm actually generally curious because i haven't seen it yet (although i was planning to) and i want to know if i should still go because now I'm not so sure. whats wrong with fantastic beasts? you don't have to answer this if you don't want, thats ok :)
reasons not to go see this shitty movie:
Fantastic Beasts is whitewashed in that it takes place in 1920′s New York (during the Jazz Age) and features a cast that is more than 80% white. It profits off of black culture and history by using it as a setting, but whitewashes it by casting white people as extras and leads. Many parts of the movie take place in Harlem, but look like this
The movie also cast Johnny Depp, a violent abuser, so paying to watch it is basically supporting him and the assholes who thought it was a good idea to cast a man who beat his wife in a Harry Potter movie and then not tell the fans about it, to make it a “surprise.”
This is made worse by the fact that the movie has a storyline where an abuse victim is turned into a monster and then killed (full trigger warning)
The major plot of the film is an allegory for racism with a white cast. The villains of the movie argue for wizard supremacy, saying that it is “for the greater good,” and that Muggles as well as goblins, elves, and other magical races are better off under the rule of wizards. Just like the original Harry Potter movies (which had poc speaking in 0.47% of it’s runtime) the major villains are meant to make the audience think of white supremacists, but racism allegories that only have white people are boring and lazy. Doing this is essentially locking POC out of our own stories.
Still no canon LGBT characters, with the (possible?) exception of Depp’s role as Grindelwald, which is worse than nothing.
The movie also has a character who is born with magical powers and a family who is extremely anti magic, represses them and then meets a man who he has an odd amount of sexual tension with who manipulates him by making him feel better about his powers. The storyline both draws parallels to LGBT experiences and perpetuates unnerving stereotypes.
It’s probably going to be boring shit anyway tbh
It’s pretty obvious at this point that JKR wants ally points for things like casting Hermione as black woman in the Cursed Child and revealing that Dumbledore was gay, without actually having to bother with giving her stories real diversity. She described Newt Scamander as “swarthy” last year, only for him to be played by a man who is the exact opposite, and the story she wrote in preparation for this movie, History of Magic in North America, showed her lack of understanding of Native American culture, and North American history in general.
tl;dr: it whitewashed 1920′s New York, has Johnny Depp in it, and it capitalizes off of LGBT themes, black culture, and abuse as a storyline while treating POC, LGBT people, and abuse victims as invisible or worse.
I asked something a month or two ago, and I haven't seen it posted yet- should I ask again or wait? Also, this is like, the best blog ever.
If you want to give me something to search my inbox with - your blog name or a key phrase - i can try to find it! but i also go two or three weeks and then answer approximately 100 asks/stories/art at once and q it all, starting from the bottom of my inbox up. so if it’s from a while ago and I did get it, it’s likely i’ll answer it soon, even if you don’t see it for a while!