medievalpoc is NOT claiming:
- that in mediaeval Europe, there were lots of people of colour everywhere
- that perceptions of race have always been the same, everywhere
- that fantasy and historical fiction and games should focus exclusively on people of colour, no white characters allowed any more
- that all important inventions and achievements were the work of POC and white people have never done anything cool
- that everything on their blog is about the mediaeval period because the word ‘medieval’ is in the URL
- that everything on their blog is 100% accurate
- that Beethoven was totally black, you guys.
medievalpoc IS claiming:
- that throughout the history of Europe, people of colour have been present in various places at various times, some as visitors, some as residents, and contemporary works of art provide evidence of this. This is because international trade, travel and migration have always been part of human life. There was never a time when Europe was exclusively white-populated and had no contact with other parts of the world.
- perceptions of race have changed over time and are different in different cultures; they are observing from the perspective of an American applying Critical Race Theory to art history and historiography
- 'historical accuracy' is not a valid reason to have no POC characters in fantasy and historical fiction and games. For many times and places, it would be more accurate to include some. It is not fair or honest for white people to claim ownership of Europe’s history and mythology and exclude POC. Diversity makes these genres more interesting, and enjoyable for more people.
- POC have been responsible for many noteworthy inventions and achievements, but in the teaching of history and art history in the United States of America (the blogger can only comment on the education system with which they are familiar), they are frequently minimised or left out altogether. This is wrong and needs to be remedied, because it is unfair to students of colour and reinforces racism in white students.
- their blog started out focusing on mediaeval depictions of POC and then grew; also, terms like ‘mediaeval’ and divisions of history into distinct periods are artificial and applied by modern historians. They can create a false impression in students that history happened in neatly compartmentalised stages. That doesn’t mean they are useless terms but we need to be aware of it when we use them.
- that they are as capable of error as anyone else and accept corrections and clarifications. It’s just that ‘everyone knows’ is not valid supporting evidence for a correction. They provide links to sources for their claims and expect anyone disagreeing with them to do the same. Some of their sources are in conflict with each other. This reflects the fact that the writing of history is not objective and unified.
- some people who knew Beethoven when he was alive commented in surviving documents that he sure looked black to them. There is no possible way of knowing what race Beethoven would be considered (or would identify as) if he were alive today. This is interesting! Nobody should feel threatened by it.
No idea if anything specific prompted this post but I mostly agree with it. I especially appreciate the summary of the whole Beethoven thing, that gets out of hand pretty quickly and no one can seem to stay grounded in what the conversation’s actually about.
return of the citrus nightmare
one of the things i am sad about in the shift from journal culture to tumblr culture is the weird tumblr etiquette of not commenting directly on a thing you enjoy. praise is both a fanfic author’s currency and fuel! we live for that stuff. if you’re going to leave a delighted, effusive reaction to a story in your tags, consider copying and pasting that text into a comment to the author themself. a lot of us hoard our comments against bad days, so we can remember why we love doing this when every word feels like pulling teeth.
for artists, too!!
this so much
If you deliberately seek out any of these images, you are directly participating in the violation not just of numerous women’s privacy but also of their bodies.In what’s being called the biggest celebrity hacking incident in internet history, more than 100 female celebrities have had their private nude images stolen and published online. The bulk of the images posted have been officially confirmed as belonging to Jennifer Lawrence, but a complete list of victims’ names - including Krysten Ritter, Kate Upton, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Rihanna, Brie Larson and Kirsten Dunst - has been subsequently published. (Link does not contain pictures, only names.)The images were first uploaded by an anonymous member of the underground internet sewer known as 4chan and have since been enthusiastically shared across platforms like Reddit and Twitter. A representative for Lawrence has confirmed the images are real, condemning the theft of them as a “flagrant violation of privacy” and adding that “The authorities have been contacted and will prosecute anyone who posts the stolen photos.”There are a few different issues that a criminal act like this brings up, but before I get into them it’s necessary to make one thing clear: If you deliberately seek out any of these images, you are directly participating in the violation not just of numerous women’s privacy but also of their bodies. These images - which I have not seen and which I will not look for - are intimate, private moments belonging only to the people who appear in them and who they have invited to see them. To have those moments stolen and broadcast to the world is an egregious act of psychic violence which constitutes a form of assault.The people sharing these images are perpetuating an ongoing assault. The people gleefully looking at them are witnessing and enjoying an ongoing assault. When you have been asked by victims of a crime like this not to exacerbate the pain of that crime and you continue to do so anyway, you are consciously deciding that your enjoyment, your rights and perhaps even just your curiosity are more important than the safety and dignity of the people you’re exploiting.That out of the way, let’s get a few other things straight.1. This is not a ‘scandal’It’s a crime, and we should be discussing it as such. Some media outlets are salaciously reporting it otherwise, as if the illegal violation of privacy involving intimate images is little more than subject for gossip. When associated with sex, the word ‘scandal’ has been typically interpreted as something that assigns responsibility to all parties involved, a consensual act unfortunately discovered and for which everyone owes an explanation or apology. Remember when private nude photos of Vanessa Hudgens (whose name also appears on the list of victims) were leaked online and Disney forced her to publicly apologise for her “lapse in judgment” and hoped she had “learned a valuable lesson”? Never mind that Hudgens was an adult and a victim of privacy violation - the ‘scandal’ was painted as something for which she owed her fans an apology. Which leads us to:2. These women do not ‘only have themselves to blame’While depressing, it’s sadly unsurprising to see some people arguing that Lawrence et al brought this on themselves. Part of living in a rape culture is the ongoing expectation that women are responsible for protecting themselves from abuse, and that means avoiding behaviour which might be later ‘exploited’ by the people who are conveniently never held to account for their actions. But women are entitled to consensually engage in their sexuality any way they see fit. If that involves taking nude self portraits for the enjoyment of themselves or consciously selected others, that’s their prerogative.Victims of crime do not have an obligation to accept dual responsibility for that crime. Women who take nude photographs of themselves are not committing a criminal act, and they shouldn’t ‘expect’ to become victims to one, as actress Mary E. Winstead pointed out on Twitter.Sending a photograph of your breasts to one person isn’t consenting to having the whole world see those breasts, just as consenting to sex with one person isn’t the same as giving permission for everyone else to fu*k you. Victim blaming isn’t okay, even if it does give you a private thrill to humiliate the female victims of sexual exploitation.3. It doesn’t matter that ‘damn, she looks good and should own it!’Stealing and sharing the private photographs of women doesn’t become less of a crime just because you approve them for fapping activity. I’m sure many of the women on this list are confident of their sexual attractiveness. It doesn’t mean they don’t value their privacy or shouldn’t expect to enjoy the same rights to it as everyone else. It also doesn’t mean they want strangers sweating over their images. That line of thinking comes from the same school which instructs women to either ignore of welcome sexual harassment when it’s seemingly ‘positive’ in its sentiments.None of these women are likely to give a shit that you think their bodies are ‘tight, damn’. Despite what society reinforces to us about the public ownership of women’s bodies, we are not entitled to co-opt and objectify them just because we think we can defend it as a compliment.I will not be seeking out these images out and I urge everyone else to avoid doing the same. I hope that all the women who have been victimised here are being appropriately supported by the authorities and their network of friends. And I hope sincerely that more people take a stand against this kind of behaviour.Because this incident aside, it strikes me as deeply ironic that we will vehemently protest a free Facebook messenger app because we’re outraged at reports that it can access our phone’s numbers, and yet turn around and excuse the serving up of women’s bodies for our own pleasure. Our appreciation is no less disgusting just because it’s accompanied by the sound of one hand clapping.Source: Clementine Ford at DailyLife
Caitlin Stasey being the hero we all deserve.
Nat’s gone and done the research, it must’ve taken ages, and it is really interesting and helpful: When was the Mx gender-inclusive title created?
The Google Groups Usenet archive extends back to 1981 and the earliest example I found of someone suggesting and using Mx (albeit as a one off) was in July 1982 on the newsgroup net.nlang during one of their frequent discussions of gender neutral pronouns (intended to be used to refer to anyone without giving their gender) and nonsexist gender neutral language (such as ‘chairperson’ and ‘womyn’)
Nat’s article goes on to document more mentions online, and the first serious mention of its practical application in 1998:
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and B12 deficiency (was Re: Organic GE)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,rec.food.veg,uk.politics.animals, uk.people.teens,soc.culture.scottish,uk.environment
Occasionally I have used the title ‘Mx’ before my name, with the idea
that it leaves in question whether I a woman or a man or somethinng in
between and gives no idea of my maritial status.
I love these little insights into gender and linguistic history. Big appreciation to Nat! I’ve updated the Mx PDF to include this new information (and a couple more examples of its use, by the University of Birmingham and the Institute of Physics), so be sure to download the new version for emailing to stubborn people. Direct download / Scribd
when thinking about your ot3, consider this:
• which two team up to try and stop the other from buying ugly furniture for the house?
• which one is always bringing home silly hats to put on the more serious partner’s head?
• which one is constantly talking with their mouth full, and which partner gets offended by their bad manners?
• who does the taxes
• who tries to help with the taxes and only makes it more difficult
• which partner is morally against paying taxes
If I follow you, yes, I care about your garden, what your cat did today, the jewelry you made, that one friend who said the thing, i like your sense of humor, and also your selfies.