mouthporn.net
#history – @broomsticks on Tumblr
Avatar

@broomsticks / broomsticks.tumblr.com

leftsidedown on ao3. hp, wolfstar/multishipper, fic recs
Avatar
reblogged

btw its actually crazy that plantation tours are a thing that exist in the u.s. and that theyre not all set up like memorials similar to concentration camp museums like how is this marketed as a chill tourist activity or wedding destination and not extremely disturbing and depressing to see. worthless country

There's a short film called What a Beautiful Wedding by @octopunkmedia about a black man who gets invited to a wedding held at a plantation and is the only one who sees all the ghosts.

Avatar
comicgeekery

That's an incredible film that makes a very good point. Plantations should never be used as grounds for "pretty house" tourism. Honestly I feel uncomfortable about a lot of preserved historical sites and how they gloss over the ugly sides of history in favor of showing off the pretty trappings of the past, like in a lot of old manors and castles. I was once even fired from a job as a historical guide at an old in New England estate, in part, for putting too much emphasis on the classism and oppression of the Gilded Age. But that doesn't come close to the levels of horror that came with slavery, or the extensive ways it still permeates society. God, the ending of this movie gave me such chills.

Avatar

Guys we gotta up our game the Georgians said fuck more than us

Having looked through historic googlebooks many a time and been frustrated by how difficult it is to search in this time period, this chart is most certainly due to the algorithm not properly picking up the "Long S" which was an f-like character used in place of an s especially in 17th and 18th century printing.

The rules of when the short and long s's are used are somewhat complicated to modern people, but they are almost always at the beginning of words, never at the end, and if there is a double s sometimes they are combined and sometimes not:

99% of the time the word actually being used is "suck" or "sucking." It actually shows up a lot as a word used to describe babies who were still nursing. In texts from this period the word "suck" will almost always read as "fuck." This makes some of these auto-transcriptions absolutely brilliant in hindsight:

If you search for the word "fuck" in googlebooks within this time frame, you get hundreds of pages of entries like this. For example, this Shakespeare anthology:

This is not to say that people in the 18th century didn't find this hilarious, I'm sure they did, but f-bombs were not being dropped in classic literature at the time. If they do show up, like in this 1785 slang dictionary: it is almost always bleeped out:

The other 1% of the fucks in 18th century books are, of course, not bleeped out because they are in Ye Olde Porn, of which there is a surprising amount on googlebooks.

I should also note if it wasn't clear that the immense dropoff just after 1800 is when the long s stopped being used in print, and the reemergence was in the mid-late 20th century when people DID start dropping f-bombs in literature

Avatar
Avatar
catchymemes
Avatar
woodelf68

All of this delights me to no end.

Avatar
neddea

…I’m actually speechless.

I wasn’t looking for any information about railroads and now I’m left with that + knowledge about spaceships, Roman chariots and one (1) unexpected but welcome joke.

Avatar
songspinner9

I am now trying to figure out how to share this (the age-appropriate parts) with my middle school history students. What a great chain of facts!

Avatar

it’s been two years, but i think that an icon like her deserves to be known about by more people.

her name was freddie oversteegen and she, at the age of fourteen, along with her older sister truus who was 16 and their friend johanna “hannie” schaft who was 19, was a part of the netherlands most famous all female resistance cell which was dedicated to fighting the nazis and dutch traitors.

among other things, they are known to have blown up bridges and railroads, smuggled jewish children from concentration camps and, as the tweet mentions, seducing nazis and then shooting them with guns that they had hidden in their bike baskets. freddie is quoted as having said that they “had to do it.” and that it was a “necessary evil, killing those who betrayed good people.”

though freddie and her sister truus were both lucky and survived the war, hannie schaft wasn’t. at the age of 24, hannie was caught and around three weeks later was executed by nazis, only 18 days before the netherlands were eventually liberated. she was shot with one only wounding her, and, before the final shot, hannie is quoted as having told the executioners: ik schiet beter, which translates to “i shoot better.”

though she didn’t survive, hannie is recognized as a national icon and a face of the dutch resistance, with her story even being retold in a movie from 1981 called “the girl with the red hair.” along with this, truus also founded the national hannie schaft foundation in 1992, on which freddie served as a board member.

freddie, at the time of her death, was 92 years old and the last surviving member of the resistance cell, with truus having died two years earlier at the age of 92.

though these women and all that they did played an important part in the dutch resistance, they are often overlooked in history outside of the netherlands. it’s important that they are remembered and that their work to save people isn’t forgotten. it’s incredible what they did, especially given how young they were, and they deserve more recognition than what they’ve gotten.

“I shoot better” Holy shit an icon

Avatar

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Historical Bibliography: Introduction and Methodology

I compiled this list because I am genuinely disturbed by all the bad history going around social media in light of the recent events in Gaza, and I want to help interested parties to understand the thousands of years of history which led us to where we are today. That is my only interest in compiling this list. I do have my own personal views on the conflict, but I am a responsible enough historian and MLIS that I know how to separate those views from my presentation of the secondary literature. The only bias you are likely to find here is in my categorization, as it inevitably reflects my fields of study.

In compiling this list, my process and methodology were as follows: I first wrote down all the relevant works I could think of off the top of my head, all hailing from my fields of Biblical Studies and Modern Jewish History. I then reached out to my friends in Modern Middle Eastern History, Conflict Studies, Jewish History, etc for recommendations, lists, and insight; one of my friends, an ABD PhD candidate in Modern Middle Eastern History, was particularly helpful in helping me understand Israeli historiography, and pointing me towards the best works in the field of Arab Nationalism.

After taking their recommendations, I conducted a series of google searches using “‘relevant search term’ site:.edu” to ensure that I received results from only academic domains. From there, I read syllabi for university courses, and examined comprehensive exam reading lists. After that, I searched the catalog of the New York Public Library using any and all relevant search terms, and I also conducted targeted searches on Amazon. By the time I finished, I had a 50 pages filled with book titles.

My next step was to divide the list into nineteen categories, deleting irrelevant titles and repeats as I went along. After dividing the books into categories, I put each title through a rigorous fact checking process, so to speak. I checked the publication material for each book to ensure that it was either a. published by an academic press with a built in peer review process, and/or b. written by an academic historian—either a faculty member, or someone with an MA or PhD in history. If I was still unsure after that step, I searched the title in the University of Maryland’s database system, and read the academic (meaning, peer reviewed) book reviews of the title. From there I either kept it on the list or removed it. As I approached the late-Ottoman period, I became extra-critical of relevant titles. At this point, I made sure to read book reviews from at least two academic journals in different fields/subfields to ensure not only the text’s legitimacy, but its ability to hold firm against the scrutiny of scholars in multiple fields. I tended to remove a work if the word “polemic” appeared in the reviews.

This said, many of the works on this list, particularly, but not exclusively, in the Post-1948, Arab Nationalism and the Modern Middle East, General Overviews, and Historiography Narratives, Memory and Theory categories will be slanted, or biased. Considering the topic at hand, this reality is both inevitable and perhaps necessary. I do advise you, however, to read any books you select from these categories critically.

The vast majority of these books are academic histories (simply put, I don’t trust popular historians with this topic), so if you are not accustomed to that type of writing, be sure to read the Introduction of whichever books you select very carefully, and understand that you are reading to learn—not necessarily to enjoy.

In terms of my categorization…it is imperfect and becomes admittedly fuzzy once we get into the late Ottoman Period. I’m not even 100% comfortable with some of these categories, but alas, if there is one thing I learned from Library Science it is that categories are both terrible and inevitable in the organization of information.

The categories are as follows:

  • Bronze Age Collapse-Babylonian Exile
  • Babylonian Exile-Roman Period
  • Byzantine Empire
  • Rise of Islam and Caliphate Rule
  • Crusades
  • Medieval European Jewish History
  • Sephardic Jewish History
  • Ottoman Empire
  • Early Modern and Modern European Jewish History
  • World War I, French Involvement, and the British Mandate in Palestine
  • Holocaust History
  • History of Zionism
  • Post-1948
  • Middle Eastern and North African Jewish History 
  • Arab Nationalism and the Modern Middle East
  • Historiography, Narratives, Memory, and Theory
  • America Does Stuff Too
  • Books Which Span Multiple Categories
  • Other

I will post the list in daily, manageable chunks until we hit the end. Once posted in its entirety, this list will be permanently linked on my home page. I will continue to add to it as I inevitably come across a neglected source or twelve and fill in some gaps. If you think I missed an important text and want me to add it, please apply my methodology to it before sending it on to me. For readers seeing this on a reblog, following me until the list is done is the best way to ensure that you won’t miss an installment.

I hope that from this list you will gain an appreciation for the long and enormously complex history of this region of the world, and I hope you gain an appreciation for the vast arrays of experiences, ethnicities, and histories tied up in this tiny, contested piece of land. Hopefully this appreciation will lead to a broad, complete understanding of the issues at stake today, and will help you to inject accurate historical understandings into dialogue when you come across it.

If you choose to reblog, please reblog as text (link leads to visual guide of how to do so). Thank you!

Oh cool, you pdf-d it!

ETA: Apparently I pdf-f it. Lol writing this book has pushed 90% of other knowledge and memory out of my brain.

Avatar
reblogged

@tapemylatte commented on a post where I said I wasn’t sure whether 美 (mei3) in a description of a style was meant to mean American-style or beautiful-style in context, and asked whose idea it was to have the same character mean both.

Okay, so in Chinese, 國 guo2 means country or kingdom, and most, but not all, countries have that character in their name, including China itself. (The character more or less depicts borders with lots of shit inside; lo, a country.)

You may have heard China called the Middle Kingdom, and that’s because it literally is: 中國 zhong1guo2 means middle, centre / kingdom. You may also hear the term Sinocentrism (or even Sinochauvism depending on how pissed off the speaker is about this) tossed around in discussions of East Asian history and it refers to the Chinese cultural obsession with being THE CENTRE. The sun about which the rest of the universe can, should, must, and will orbit.

Since China has so gloriously so deemed itself, it’s only fair that they give other countries flattering names, and in the 19th~ century that’s basically what they did with the 4 big countries that showed up and were like HEY YOU WORK WITH US NOW: take a single character with a flattering meaning that sounds like the ginning of that country’s name for itself in its own language.

  • 英國 - Ying1guo2 (the y is silent) - hero country - England
  • 法國 - Fa3guo2 - law country - France
  • 美國 - Mei3guo2 - beautiful country - America (incidentally, Japan did a similar phonetic thing but went with 米 rice, which I would consider a compliment)
  • 德國 - De2guo2 - virtue country - Germany (De from Deutch)

However later countries didn’t get that kind of a deal, getting a straight phonetic version that may or may not make any sense.

  • 加拿大 - Jia1na2da4 - add / grab / big - Canada
  • 西班牙 - Xi1ban1ya2 - west / team / tooth - Spain
  • 委內瑞拉 - Wei3nei4rui4la1 - appoint / within / auspicious / pull - Venezuela

Countries that have older connections with China have names that don’t follow these patterns, like Korea 韓國 and Japan 日本 and Mongolia 蒙古 and Vietnam 越南. Russia is 俄國 or 俄羅斯 but I actually don’t know how old the term is.

Caveat: this is my off-hand knowledge, accurate to the best of my knowledge, but do not consider me a source to cite.

Avatar

“Perhaps you have forgotten. That’s one of the great problems of our modern world, you know. Forgetting. The victim never forgets. Ask an Irishman what the English did to him in 1920 and he’ll tell you the day of the month and the time and the name of every man they killed. Ask an Iranian what the English did to him in 1953 and he’ll tell you. His child will tell you. His grandchild will tell you. And when he has one, his great-grandchild will tell you too. But ask an Englishman—” He flung up his hands in mock ignorance. “If he ever knew, he has forgotten. ‘Move on!’ you tell us. ‘Move on! Forget what we’ve done to you. Tomorrow’s another day!’ But it isn’t, Mr. Brue.” He still had Brue’s hand. “Tomorrow was created yesterday, you see. That is the point I was making to you. And by the day before yesterday, too. To ignore history is to ignore the wolf at the door.”

- A Most Wanted Man, John le Carré

Avatar
Avatar
liberaljane

Women's Not So Distant History

This #WomensHistoryMonth, let's not forget how many of our rights were only won in recent decades, and weren’t acquired by asking nicely and waiting. We need to fight for our rights. Here's are a few examples:

📍 Before 1974's Fair Credit Opportunity Act made it illegal for financial institutions to discriminate against applicants' gender, banks could refuse women a credit card. Women won the right to open a bank account in the 1960s, but many banks still refused without a husband’s signature. This allowed men to continue to have control over women’s bank accounts. Unmarried women were often refused service by financial institutions entirely.

📍 Before 1977, sexual harassment was not considered a legal offense. That changed when a woman brought her boss to court after she refused his sexual advances and was fired. The court stated that her termination violated the 1974 Civil Rights Act, which made employment discrimination illegal.⚖️

📍 In 1969, California became the first state to pass legislation to allow no-fault divorce. Before then, divorce could only be obtained if a woman could prove that her husband had committed serious faults such as adultery. 💍By 1977, nine states had adopted no-fault divorce laws, and by late 1983, every state had but two. The last, New York, adopted a law in 2010.

📍In 1967, Kathrine Switzer, entered the Boston Marathon under the name "K.V. Switzer." At the time, the Amateur Athletics Union didn't allow women. Once discovered, staff tried to remove Switzer from the race, but she finished. AAU did not formally accept women until fall 1971.

📍 In 1972, Lillian Garland, a receptionist at a California bank, went on unpaid leave to have a baby and when she returned, her position was filled. Her lawsuit led to 1978's Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which found that discriminating against pregnant people is unlawful

📍 It wasn’t until 2016 that gay marriage was legal in all 50 states. Previously, laws varied by state, and while many states allowed for civil unions for same-sex couples, it created a separate but equal standard. In 2008, California was the first state to achieve marriage equality, only to reverse that right following a ballot initiative later that year. 

📍In 2018, Utah and Idaho were the last two states that lacked clear legislation protecting chest or breast feeding parents from obscenity laws. At the time, an Idaho congressman complained women would, "whip it out and do it anywhere,"

📍 In 1973, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to safe legal abortion in Roe v. Wade. At the time of the decision, nearly all states outlawed abortion with few exceptions. In 1965, illegal abortions made up one-sixth of all pregnancy- and childbirth-related deaths. Unfortunately after years of abortion restrictions and bans, the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022. Since then, 14 states have fully banned care, and another 7 severely restrict it – leaving most of the south and midwest without access. 

📍 Before 1973, women were not able to serve on a jury in all 50 states. However, this varied by state: Utah was the first state to allow women to serve jury duty in 1898. Though, by 1927, only 19 states allowed women to serve jury duty. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 gave women the right to serve on federal juries, though it wasn't until 1973 that all 50 states passed similar legislation

📍 Before 1988, women were unable to get a business loan on their own. The Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988 allowed women to get loans without a male co-signer and removed other barriers to women in business. The number of women-owned businesses increased by 31 times in the last four decades. 

📍 Before 1965, married women had no right to birth control. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that banning the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy.

📍 Before 1967, interracial couples didn’t have the right to marry. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court found that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. In 2000, Alabama was the last State to remove its anti-miscegenation laws from the books.

📍 Before 1972, unmarried women didn’t have the right to birth control. While married couples gained the right in 1967, it wasn’t until Eisenstadt v. Baird seven years later, that the Supreme Court affirmed the right to contraception for unmarried people.

📍 In 1974, the last “Ugly Laws” were repealed in Chicago. “Ugly Laws” allowed the police to arrest and jail people with visible disabilities for being seen in public. People charged with ugly laws were either charged a fine or held in jail. ‘Ugly Laws’ were a part of the late 19th century Victorian Era poor laws. 

📍 In 1976, Hawaii was the last state to lift requirements that a woman take her husband’s last name.  If a woman didn’t take her husband’s last name, employers could refuse to issue her payroll and she could be barred from voting. 

📍 It wasn’t until 1993 that marital assault became a crime in all 50 states. Historically, intercourse within marriage was regarded as a “right” of spouses. Before 1974, in all fifty U.S. states, men had legal immunity for assaults their wives. Oklahoma and North Carolina were the last to change the law in 1993.

📍  In 1990, the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) – most comprehensive disability rights legislation in U.S. history – was passed. The ADA protected disabled people from employment discrimination. Previously, an employer could refuse to hire someone just because of their disability.

📍 Before 1993, women weren’t allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor. That changed when Sen. Moseley Braun (D-IL), & Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) wore trousers - shocking the male-dominated Senate. Their fashion statement ultimately led to the dress code being clarified to allow women to wear pants. 

📍 Emergency contraception (Plan B) wasn't approved by the FDA until 1998. While many can get emergency contraception at their local drugstore, back then it required a prescription. In 2013, the FDA removed age limits & allowed retailers to stock it directly on the shelf (although many don’t).

📍  In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that anti-cohabitation laws were unconstitutional. Sometimes referred to as the ‘'Living in Sin' statute, anti-cohabitation laws criminalize living with a partner if the couple is unmarried. Today, Mississippi still has laws on its books against cohabitation. 

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
visenyaism

TRICKY RICK MIGHT NOT HAVE DONE IT????

Avatar
uncahier

Ok, because this is really interesting and there’s a paywall, article text below the cut:

Sorry to piggyback on your post, @tall-wolf-of-tarth but I have to comment.

I watched Langley's documentary last night, and I think there are some serious, serious flaws with the way this evidence has been presented to suit a particular argument. This will be posted in two parts.

  • Firstly, it is important to say that Langley is a longstanding member of the Richard III Society. The R3 Society is a group has, according to their own website been "working since 1924 to secure a more balanced assessment of the king and support research into his life and times". This is all well and good, and the funding provided by the R3 Society was instrumental in funding the archaeological dig performed by the University of Leicester that found Richard's body in 2012. However, it is important to understand what the R3 Society's motives are. The R3 is – as it says in the "About Us" section on its website – is committed to overturning what it sees as "lies" about Richard III. The most prominent of these is that Richard did not murder his nephews, but instead this was a lie made up by his successor Henry VII and was propagated by a supposed army of propagandists, the most famous being Sir Thomas More. According to the R3 Society, Shakespeare then took this propaganda image of Richard and turned him into the hunchbacked, cackling, "my horse, my horse" king of legend. If you are a professional historian, there are problems with this methodology – ideally, you should let the sources speak for you, and not approach a historical subject intending to find X, Y, or Z or place a narrative on the documents you find. Philippa Langley and the R3 Society do this all the time, and so while the documentary has revealed new and interesting evidence on the reign of Henry VII, it has been presented in such a way that puts the highest analytical burden on sources that "vilify" Richard, while doing little more than taking sources that exonerate him at face value.
  • Secondly, the R3 Society has form in searching for evidence to fit its own narrative before. The most famous example of this is the quest to find Richard's body. The Ricardians (people who are pro-Richard) had wanted to do this for a long time because they thought in finding the body they would be able to throw off one of the key pieces of "Tudor propaganda" that have dogged Richard – that he had a hunchback. Unfortunately, when his body was discovered in 2012, it was definitively proved that this long standing view of Richard was at least somewhat true, as Richard was shown to have scoliosis/a spinal deformity. It is debated what effect this curvature would have had on his body, but it does show that the Tudor sources that repeated that Richard had one shoulder higher than the other were not just making stuff up to make him look bad – they were in fact stating a truth. Philippa Langley was very upset when they discovered Richard had a spinal deformity, as you can see in the documentary "The King in the Car Park" (which is brilliantly presented by Simon Farnaby), and this is because she was approaching the archaeological evidence wanting to find a Richard with a straight spine. That's a problem when you are working with historical evidence and you are trying to be as dispassionate and objective as possible (while recognising that we all have our own biases, unconscious and conscious).
  • Now, onto the bones. The bones were discovered during the reign of Charles II (so, some two hundred years after the Princes' disappearance) and were reburied in Westminster Abbey. To disinter a body from the Abbey, permission has to be granted by the reigning monarch. Elizabeth II was always very reluctant to do this, but it is possible Charles will be more open and may allow a test in future (but in truth, I don't know what his opinion is). Like with Richard's body, Langley and the R3 Society are hoping the bones will be proved not to be the princes, because they feel it will vindicate Richard due to the absence of tangible evidence of the princes' deaths. However, most scholars agree it will not actually prove anything at all. If the bones are the princes, it just proves that they died in the Tower, not who murdered them. If the bones are not the princes, it just means these bones belong to someone else. The Tower of London is old, and was built on part of Londinium's Roman wall. Pre-medieval and even Roman human remains have been found on the site before, it wouldn't be a surprise if these bones dated to any point before the 17th century. Nathen Amin, a member of the Royal Historical Society, suspects that the bones are not the Princes because of some evidence he found in 16th century Welsh records that argue Richard (or his lackeys) disposed of the bodies in the nearby River Thames. Whether the bones are or are not the princes can therefore do little to answer the central questions about who killed these little boys.
  • Now, onto the primary evidence presented in the documentary. The most interesting discovery was a document from the Gelders Archive purporting to be a description by "Prince Richard" (the younger of the two Princes) about his escape from the Tower and his subsequent journey to the Continent, to the court of Richard's sister, Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy. The documentary is a great pains to emphasise this document is "authentic", but in doing so sets out to confuse the viewer somewhat. It establishes that the document is from the fifteenth century in a cursive gothic script and that it is written on parchment that has an authentic fifteenth century watermark, and uses this to suggest to the viewer that this document is not a forgery and therefore what it says must therefore be "the truth". However, while script and paper marks are things a historian would use to date and place a document, there are problems. Firstly, we don't know where this document comes from. It's a couple of loose sheets that was deposited at the Gelders Archive in the 1950s, and we have no idea where it was before that. This is problematic, as it means the purpose is unclear. What if it fell out of a fifteenth century creative writing project, and is now being treated as a true account of events? Also, the documentary kinda skims over the fact the document was in Dutch, saying it was probably a translation. How do they know it was a translation given we don't know where it comes from? And if it's not a translation but is in fact the original words of the "Prince Richard", either in autograph or dictation, wouldn't that be pretty big evidence that this man really was the pretender Perkin Warbeck, who grew up speaking Dutch, rather than the English Prince Richard? Secondly, Langley takes the fact that there is a lot of detail in this text (ie. "we went to Dover and then Boulogne and then...") as evidence that the text must be true. Again, why would that be the case? If you are making a story up, providing lots of false detail might be a way to convince people. If the documentary is interpreted that way, it perfectly fits in with the scholarly consensus – that a Flemish man named Perkin Warbeck pretended to be Prince Richard in an effort to claim the English throne, was supported by Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, in doing so. This document might just have been an effort to get the story straight.
  • The documentary also brought up a lot of documents that mention Margaret of York raising money for "Prince Richard", and this is taken at face value. If Margaret was really involved in getting an imposter to pose as her nephew in order to put him on the English throne, this is not something that would be written down in account books. He would be called "Prince Richard", and the fake Prince Richard would sign himself as "Richard of England", because actually calling him "Perkin Warbeck" would undermine everything they are working towards. These documents really prove nothing.

unbelievable in the original tweet is right. even without watching this doc or reading all paywalled articles, i literally cannot believe it. this lady got lucky once finding dickie's bones and everyone ignores how they also proved her group wrong as she stood there on-camera crying as her fantasy of a straight-backed king dissolved and the "accusation" of a curved spine was shown to have some basis in truth.

lol at

It is unclear how the latest theories fit with a previous claim from the Missing Princes Project, made in 2021, that the elder prince lived out his days in a Devon village under the name John Evans.

"The guy says he's Prince Richard so it must be true" is some pretty hard evidence, fellas, can't see a way around this one

Thankfully, someone already wrote a comprehensive explanation in the thread above so I don't have to, again. But I did answer two asks on the topic (here and here) back in December 2021 when Langley was peddling her other "Edward V escaped the Tower and lived as John Evans in Devon" theory. I explained why this is suspect, how it didn't fit with the existing historical record, and why the Ricardians are so desperate to get said record to vindicate their pet theories that they're willing to ignore, selectively (to say the least) misinterpret, reread, take out of context, and otherwise do Bad History. So.

I appreciate @seethemflying's more thorough explanation above, since I haven't watched the documentary and have no plans to do so. But I will add a few notes based on my quick reading of the transcription of the article text:

  • First, Langley was publishing "evidence" in the Daily Mail that Edward V was "John Evans." Now she's back in the Telegraph (an equally dubious right-wing British tabloid with little claim to scholarly rigor or institutional legitimacy) insisting that "Perkin Warbeck must have really been Prince Richard because we found some documents claiming that!"
  • Once again, as I said above: if Langley wants her claims tested against credible evidence (which this, despite what the tweet wants to claim, is not) and properly rigorous peer review, she needs to submit them to actual scholarly journals, not notorious UK tabloids. One suspects she hasn't done that because she has no interest in any narrative that empirically or reasonably disproves her chosen conclusion (that RIII was innocent and also a Perfect Shining Abled Angel of Kingship Who Never Touched His Nephews etc. etc.) That is also why she will take pride in "historians don't believe me!" as a way of showing how "legitimate" her research is, because Big History Doesn't Want The Truth Out There!
  • This is a) the usual anti-intellectual conspiracy theory that historians are all secretly covering up the Real Past and don't want you to know the Truth, and b) is not something that any actual academic historian would agree with. We love arguing about things and reviewing documents and challenging conclusions. But when all that rests on interpreting some very dubious evidence as favorably and surface-levelly as possible, while deliberately ignoring compelling counterclaims and methods with more weight of independent corroboration behind them (i.e. not just your personal likes and dislikes), you can and will get called out for it.
  • Likewise as pointed out: the document that Langley is flourishing as "proof" that Perkin Warbeck was actually Prince Richard a) fits with the mainstream scholarly theory that he was a Flemish-born impostor supported by the duchess of Burgundy, and b) requires reading this document as naively and uncritically as possible. We already know that there was a well-established conspiracy to position Warbeck (and Lambert Simnel) as the lost princes. We can easily assume that documents and details were prepared to support this forgery. Insisting that this Document Says Something So It's True is a wildly uncritical historiographical approach that would get you marked down in freshman history class, because that's not how assessing evidence works.
  • Basically, you would only think this proves your RIII Didn't Kill The Princes and Also This Guy Who We Know Was Not Prince Richard Totally Was Because He Says So if you were dedicated to finding that in the first place (as the Ricardians are) regardless of any actual evidence or methodology or even basic reality constraints to the contrary.
  • So.
Avatar
Avatar
irishshauna

Learning this was an intentional genocide changed me.

I know most of those following me know this, but just to make it super clear. An Gorta Mór (The Great Hunger/the Great Famine) was a deliberate genocide of the Irish people. There was enough food grown in Ireland to make sure everyone was alive and healthy and survived. Instead it was exported, sent to England and elsewhere for profit while men, women, and children starved in the streets. While the English landlords fucked off and evicted starving families who couldn’t afford rent. While babies were too weak to cry and died at the side of the road.

They tried to kill us, but they did not succeed. And we owe so much thanks to the other oppressed peoples, in particular the Choctaw Nation and the Masai, who sent money and grain to us.

Let me repeat that. The Choctaw Nation who had just gone through the Trail of Tears sent us money to try save Irish lives. It’s led to an understanding between Irish people and Native American tribes, most recently when we donated to the Navajo and Hopi fundraisers for COVID-19 relief, because while it may be a different tribe, Irish people will never forget those who helped us and we’ll help back.

The entire population of the island is less than seven million people. We’re still a million less on this island than pre famine. And it’s not that long ago. My grandmother’s grandparents lived through it. We’ve told the stories, it literally changed the DNA of the country. We have a national fear of renting, because so many people were evicted. People joke about Irish people always offering loads of food, but it’s because there’s that cultural memory of not being able to.

They tried to kill us, but they did not succeed. We will not let them take our lives, we will not let them take our language. We lost so much, but we will not lose it all.

This is why I get so angry when people say “it was the potato famine, it was because of monoculture/microbes.”

Nope. The potatoes were the only thing Irish people were allowed to fucking eat, because as pointed out, the rest of the crops they were growing were for their landlords to ship to England. So when the one “worthless” crop they were allowed to eat rotted in the field, the English crown, empire, landlords, all shrugged and carried on. People starved to death lying next to productive fields.

Avatar
reblogged

these are the questions about history that the people really need to ask

I love these sorts of questions, truly I do. I have a bachelor and masters in history, i love history, but I understand that not everybody feels that way! In elementary school we are often only taught about big wars and made to memorize dates and the names of kings and all that, but history is so much more than that!

These are the types of questions that can help people get into history because you get to find out that not only did people do backflips in ancient times, but then I as a historian, get to tell you that there was a whole fun cultural tradition in the Minoan period colloquially referred to as Minoan bull leaping where people ran straight at bulls and did a flying front flip over them!

Which might then lead you to ask why did they stop? And I get to tell you that it didn't! Its still practiced in Spain! And in that moment I have given you at least a 3000 year span of history that you know people did flips in cool ways which might prompt you to want to know more about cool acrobatic traditions!

Anyway I love history, especially the history of the every day, if you ever have a history question no matter how silly you think it is please always either look it up or find someone to ask, our ancestors were a lot more human than we give them credit for.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
aropride

?????????????????????

glad we're all on the same page

Avatar
nyancrimew

the internet archive could murder me in cold blood if it benefited archival, also where can i buy some of that internet archive heroin?

Avatar
jv

The internet archive is the only thing in the world I would consider allowing consuming the kind of energy Bitcoin and Ethereum consume.

Avatar
reblogged

There’s a book out there that’s either one of the last great unsolved cyphers or a massive medieval hoax. Welcome to the weird world of the Voynich Manuscript. And no, it isn’t solved yet.

I did this comic for The Nib last year (The Nib is an amazingly great place for comics on Medium if you don’t know that already). You can follow all my work on Medium here.

Avatar
moonblossom

I fucking love the Voynich Manuscript you guys

Personally, I’ve always loved xkcd’s theory.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
fluidstatick

When I was little, my dad hired a Cambodian refugee called Jack to help him drywall a dining room ceiling. Jack spoke very little English; he'd recently gotten a part time job in a little Asian deli not far from our home and needed to pick up some extra work. He was very kind to six year old me and my exhausted mom; he brought us day old leftovers from the deli counter often, and liked to tuck the knuckle of his index finger into the dimple in my cheek whenever I smiled at him.

He soaked up construction skills and other information like a sponge, and by the time he left my dad's tiny construction company he'd gotten his GED, learned to drive, reunited with his sister and her family, and had begun remodeling a vacant business on the rich side of town into a Cambodian restaurant. He invited us to their grand opening on lunar new year, and I'll never forget when he gave me a red envelope with five dollars in it and told me, "tonight I am the luckiest man in the world, so this will bring you luck, too."

Years later, my dad told me that Jack had witnessed his parents' murder during the khmer rouge, and was immediately separated from his sister. He had to cross the killing fields at Choeung Ek alone, on foot, eating grass and insects to survive. He somehow made it to Cam Ranh on the coast of Vietnam, where a distant friend of his father's put him on a boat to Seattle. Jack was nine years old.

I tell this story because, even though I haven't seen Jack or any of his relatives in thirty years, I pray he's well and happy and eating like a king tonight with everyone he loves, celebrating the long overdue demise of the pestilential sonofabitch who tried to wipe them out.

Fuck Henry Kissinger's pathetic ghost, and fuck all those who praise him. Fuck Imperialism. Fuck the genocidal war machine. Drink deep for the freedom of all souls tonight, my friends. And tomorrow, keep fighting.

Avatar
dani-kin

My grandparents took in Laotian and Cambodian refugees, they slept on the floor of the living room until they could sort better places for them to go, usually into overcrowded apartments, or houses with family members who made the trip before them. Then they would go to the airport and pick up another car full. They did this roughly once a week for several months. At any time 3-12 of them slept in the living room.

 My grandpa taught some of a little plumbing since was a plumber, honestly my grandmother was an awful cook so my dad said he ate better in those months than he ever had before, and they were always quick to clear up any misapprehensions because with dozens of people rotating in and out of their house, they never had anything stolen or broken. But the funny thing is that I had to find out all of this after my grand mother died, because I found a newspaper clipping about it in her things. She never wanted to really brag about it, she just wanted to do the right thing for people.

My dad grew up to be a sort of independent moderate republicanish, but he started swinging more left after I came out. And he was the first one to text me about Kissinger‘s death. Specifically the text said “worlds a better place now”.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
bogleech

This is one of those true, declassified government things that always sounds made up but one of the things Henry Kissinger did with his career was use the CIA to help turn small, prosperous socialist nations into fascist dictatorships just to keep those nations powerless and possibly to keep socialist systems *looking* doomed and futile to the American public, like maybe just to scare Americans out of demanding better infrastructure or universal income. Yes it sounds like an insane conspiracy theory a maniac would invent. It also happened multiple times and several generations of people around the world are still living in misery because of it.

Avatar
jv

"why there all the communist countries are always dictatorships? why there are not communist democracies?"

Why, you voted for a communist government? Sure, sure, heeeere comes Kissinger with a steel chair!

Like, folks, I'm joking about it, but this is

LITERALLY

what have happened to every single country in the world that have voted for a government who has tried to implement socialism.

Let's see:

  • Costa Rica (1948)
  • Syria (1949)
  • Guatemala (1952)
  • Iran (1953)
  • Cambodia (1959)
  • Congo (1960)
  • Brazil (1964)
  • Chile (1970)

...

honestly I'm getting tired of selecting which ones were about removing a socialist goverment from this list, you can take a look at the entire thing here:

This is why "America is a beacon of freedom and democracy for the rest of the world!" is a ridiculous lie. Many of the dictatorships came about either because USA directly supported the dictator in some way, or because an existing more democratic government was destroyed by the USA, causing a sudden power vacuum and instability which frequently leads to dictatorships.

Avatar
virovac

I honestly from a young age decided I have no strong opinions on viability of communism since the data pool is tainted

The data pool was tampered with

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net