#historical discourse

[itsmsdirection]

jeorg wankington

[pattern-53-enfield]

Am I really seeing 2012-era "Evul Moozlims were the only reason the Catholic Church ordered crusades" posts on my dash again

It's 20(CURRENTYEARARGUMENT)17, stop pretending as if the Catholic Church of that era was something you fucks would actually fit in with.

[marzipanandminutiae]

Hey, i'm sorry if you've been asked this before, but regarding the statue discourse, there's a story i've heard that christians would break the penises off of greek and roman statues bc nudity is bad etc. Is that also not true? Thanks for your time

Okay so here’s what I can find on that.

In 1557, Pope Paul IV issued a papal bull to the effect that naked classical statues be censored with plaster fig leaves (also that Jewish people had to live in ghettos- it was a bull that escalated quickly). Pope Innocent X did the same thing but preferred metal fig leaves. Pope Clement XIII started the Vatican mass-producing regulation statue fig leaves, and Pope Pius IX went right off the deep end in 1857 and started ordering the few remaining uncensored nude statues destroyed. It was apparently during this time that some statues became castrati.

I can’t find any specific primary sources saying “yes these people for sure whacked off some dicks and I saw it with my own eyes,” but the statues were definitely censored and there definitely are some statues clearly missing penises as the result of intentional vandalism. Also I’m not sure those fig leaves would lay so flat over stone dicks, so they might have removed those before adding the leaves. Nobody that I know of has taken the leaves off to check.

Again, primary sources are few on this one, but here’s a blog post I’m inclined to trust because it seems more specific in its attributions than most other articles on the subject.

https://arthuride.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/fig-leaves-popes-and-genitalia/

Final verdict: I’m going to say yes this is true, but it was mostly a small group of powerful zealots doing it and some Christians (like Michaelangelo, who had a long battle with the church over nudes in the Sistine Chapel) hated the idea.

Art history Tumblr, any thoughts? Let me know if I’m completely off-base.

[dougielombax]

You just know that historical discourse in the Star Wars universe is gonna be a shitshow!

“BUT WE NEED TO THANK THE EMPIRE FOR THE GOOD THEY DID!!!!!!!! THEY BROUGHT SECURITY AND PEACE!!!!!”

“They also killed millions of innocent people and blew up an entire planet!”

“IT WAS NECESSARY!!!!!!!!!!! THERE WAS NO ALDERAAN!!!!!!! THEY WERE TERRORISTS!!!THE DEATH STAR WAS A LAST RESORT WEAPON TO COUNTER TERRORISM!!!!!!!”

Yes I have been thinking a lot about this.

[itsmsdirection]

hey everyone dont forget that on valentines day 1884 teddy roosevelt's wife and mother died on the exact same day in the same house from different causes

you can never feel as alone as that guy did, remember that

[bees-and-mice-and-frogs-and]

Thoughts on the Pachacuti Discourse

Hello, I’ve been seeing a lot of discourse in various online spaces with regards to the horrible histories song, Pachacuti, and I have wanted to get some thoughts down about it. (For anyone that hasn’t see it, I will put a link to it under the read more at the end, CW:brownface, violence.)

I’m not going to talk about the brownface, because I feel I shouldn’t have to. 2011 was a wild time in UK TV and I’m not sure why so many shows had as much minstrelsy in them as they did. It’s unacceptable, but I don’t need to tell you that.

I see a lot of BIPOC talking about how the video makes them uncomfortable, and then I am very disappointed to see white people in the comments completely missing the point. Indigenous people talking on this issue are raising a very valid point we would all do well to listen to.

It is a big problem with Horrible Histories that, even though it was thoroughly fact checked, it does only present the really nasty bits of history. This was done originally with far more nuance by Terry Deary and I believe the books do not carry the following issue. What the show ends up doing is presenting white societies as historically very dirty at most, but then presenting BIPOC societies as extremely violent and dangerous. They miss out a lot of the violent stuff in white societies that is present in the books, and they miss out almost all of the progressive parts of non-white societies that is also present in the books.

The song doesn’t talk bout how Pachacuti was actually a very fair leader and living under him (even if you were one of the people he conquered) was probably a rather nice way to live. It doesn’t mention how he was a brilliant leader. These bits aren’t horrid, and so don’t make it into the show. I reckon that the violence he inflicted upon rival leaders who didn’t bow to him was no worse than that which was present in european societies of the same time. 

And this is what white people responding to this discourse are missing. The problem is not what is being said, but that which is not being said. It gives a half picture of a man, and is emblematic of a wider problem within the show. Historical discourse does not exist within a vacuum and as such we cannot simply present the nasty bits of historically misrepresented societies without feeding into the impression that these societies were somehow uniquely violent.

I disagree with any voice that tries to present these societies as non-violent, as this is not accurate. However any discussion of their violence must be backed with a thorough understanding that this violence was either typical globally for the time, or atypical for being less violent than many other societies. 

I am not saying anything any Indigenous voice has not said on this issue, however I am backing up what they say with my own criticisms and knowledge of the show (being a brit and having watched it as a child.)

(Video below)

[historicalfirearms]

The Necessary War

In this BBC recent documentary presented by respected British historian Max Hastings the causes and moral implications of the First World War are examined.  The documentary examines to July Crisis and the build-up to war and the justification for Britain's involvement.  An interesting film, well worth watching.