Tout est ailleurs

Grüß Gott! (That's Bavarian for hello!) I'm Colin, and I'm the strangest liberal monarchist historian that you'll meet. This is going to be a space where I repost some things and pontificate on others. Want to know more? Just ask.

[jasminescephas-deactivated20160]

I can't believe napoleon was fucking bi

i’m not. 

[grafvonmontgelas]

Alexander and Napoléon OTP??

[publius-esquire-deactivated2018]

Valid Reasons to be Upset About the Money Change:

This was supposed to get Andrew Jackson off of the $20.00. He’s a symbol of racism, genocide, southern power, and manifest destiny, as well as a terrible economist, who should never have graced the currency in the first place.

Out of all the Problematic Dead White Dudes on money, Alexander Hamilton is probably the least problematic in terms of racial politics. He was an abolitionist, was for arming slaves to fight in the Revolution in exchange for freedom, was a member of the Manumission Society, had surprisingly enlightened views on racial equality for his time, supported the Haitian Revolution, and helped New York end slavery. Also he was the first Secretary of the Treasury.

Racist crank Thomas Jefferson is still on the $2.00.

As a Nevisian, Hamilton is the only foreign-born immigrant on American bills. The fact that they picked him is the latest in a long, long history of attacks on Hamilton’s Americanism. 

One cannot make the argument that they went after one of the non-presidents, since Benjamin Franklin is on the $100.00.

The fact that they left Jackson and Jefferson alone and picked the least problematic guy was probably intentional.

They didn’t have the decency to just get rid of him period. The first woman on the American dollar bills will be sharing her spot with a man.

By saying it doesn’t matter which man the first woman replaces, it’s a faux feminist argument, because it tells men they don’t have to have standards when it comes to the representation of their gender on money. It’s not the fact that Hamilton was replaced: it’s that he was replaced first instead of genocidal maniac Jackson.

Invalid Reasons to be Upset About the Money Change:

A woman is going to be on one of the dollar bills.

[jadore-histoire]

Once again, Pubby says it much better than I ever could

[z-unit]

All of this, plus, Alexander Hamilton isn’t technically even a “Problematic Dead White Dude,” he was born out of wedlock to a multiracial West Indian woman. We’re taking the least white dude off our money. Simultaneously bummed they’re not getting rid of Jackson and excited to see a female face on legal tender that might actually get used, not esoteric coins.

[grafvonmontgelas]

Actually, this isn't true- to my knowledge (and here I'm going on Chernow's magisterial biography, which I highly recommend), there's no substantive evidence that Hamilton's mother was multiracial. Hamilton is a laudable figure for many reasons, but there's no real evidence to support his multiracial ancestry.

That said, these are all good reasons to object to Hamilton's removal from the $10

[eclipsebykimlipmp3-deactivated2]

Of course we need to care about homeless trans youth, we need to care about trans women being murdered, about twoc being misplaced and put in constant danger, but we are allowed to celebrate a step forward in the process of breaking down oppressive structures, and we cannot ignore the material benefits of marriage and act like it’s Just about catering to the cis white moderate, this is important too

[grafvonmontgelas]

This this this

Institutions matter y'all

[eattherich73]

Let me clear this up for some straight cis folks. You aren’t fucking queer. You cannot identify as queer. Period. End of discussion.

Also, “Queer heterosexual” is not a goddamn thing. Any straight person who identifies that will get a swift kick to the groin. 

[flashthemessage]

As a straight cis ally, I’d just like to say that some people get WAY too into linguistics and semantics; Although I’ve never personally encountered someone who self-identifies in this way, it honestly strikes me as somebody who is (albeit naively) trying to express a strong sense of comradery/acceptance. I could be entirely wrong here, but it seems like a misguided attempt at support, to which I feel a more productive form of feedback would be re-education, not hostility. Again, just my two cents, but I feel as though in the wake of horrific crimes against the trans-commuunity, efforts of mobility amongst troops should be placed on a much higher priority than alienating people who (albeit misguidedly) have their hearts in the right place. Feel free to give me a bunch of shit though if I’m coming off as hella-ignorant right now

[grafvonmontgelas]

Perhaps I am a bit naive myself in saying this, but it appears that one might be inadvertently applying Rachel Dolezal logic here? I get that there are people who want to express solidarity- and this is a good thing- but one should not hesitate to call people who, however well intentioned they may be, appropriate queer vocabulary.

Semantics and linguistics do matter- we shouldn't understate this.

[eattherich73]

Can someone please explain to me why straight people so desperately want to claim the word queer as their own?

Cause guess the fuck what, “queer” has a very distinct history and meaning towards LGBT folks. Not all LGBT folks are even comfortable with the word “queer” since it has been used to degrade them. Why the fuck would straight people even want to use a term they use to degrade LGBT folks. Please enlighten me. 

[grafvonmontgelas]

This is a very good question...

[bantarleton]

The cutest thing I saw at Waterloo, hands down.

[grafvonmontgelas]

Waiting for the next attack on Hougoumont?

[cyanblur]

i remember one time the simpsons made a joke about fox news and they got so insulted they tried to sue them but the court was like “this aired on ur network u can’t sue urself”

[grafvonmontgelas]

And this isn't being called terrorism because...? More people died here than did in Boston and yet that incident was called a terrorist attack from the moment it happened...

[grafvonmontgelas]

75 years ago today, the Soviet Union illegally occupied Latvia. Shortly thereafter, it extended its illegal occupation to include Estonia and Lithuania. 50 years of Soviet terror and occupation irreparably damaged the Baltic states and caused thousands to be killed or deported- yet how many in the West will remember?

[valinaraii]

I realise now that I wrote “Dragons of the Empress” instead of Dragoons so involuntarily gave the Empress Josephine a whole regiment of nostalgic fire-breathing creatures to remember her at Malmaison every 29th of May.

[joachimmurat-archive-deactivate]

Who’s to say that she didn’t? The woman collected all kinds of exotic beasties…

[grafvonmontgelas]

Maybe a regiment of dragons would've been able to find and catch Blücher before he could join Wellington- but given Grouchy's luck, I imagine they'd have flown the wrong way

[eva-420]

tom nook gave us 0 down payment 0% interest home loans in the worst housing recession in american history and people still call him a crook, i cannot abide by this 

[grafvonmontgelas]

well either that or he was just faithfully executing Bernanke’s zero-interest rate policy and taking advantage of quantitative easing i mean who knows maybe the fed also prints bells :o

[bonitaapplebelle-deactivated201]

White boys can spend all day on youtube watching Illuminati and 9/11 conspiracy videos, but ask them about structural racism and they’ll be like “sources?” 

[grafvonmontgelas]

good point...but but mah jet fuel :o

[greatwar-1914]

Lancashire Fusiliers at Gallipoli await the order to attack.

[thepurposeofplaying-blog]

seeing french revolution-themed humour on ur dash like

[grafvonmontgelas]

To press non-economic values into the framework of the economic calculus, economists use the method of cost/benefit analysis. This is generally thought to be an enlightened and progressive development, as it is at least an attempt to take account of costs and benefits which might otherwise be disregarded altogether. In fact, however, it is a procedure by which the higher is reduced to the level of the lower and the priceless is given a price, It can therefore never serve to clarify the situation and lead to an enlightened decision...The logical absurdity, however, is not the greatest fault of the undertaking: what is worse, and destructive of civilisation, is the pretence that everything has a price or, in other words, that money is the highest of all values."

E.F. Schumacher, “Small is Beautiful”, 1971

[grafvonmontgelas]

I have no idea what to do with my first post, so here’s Vernet’s painting of Napoléon at the Battle of Friedland in 1807.