a lot of you hate historians and archaeologists, and i think that’s a problem
look, i fully recognize that there are reasons to be skeptical of history and archaeology. i am very on board with criticizing academia as an oppressive institution, and the way that researchers take their bigotry and bias with them to their work. i also recognize that academia does a pretty bad job of communicating what it does to the public, and that’s a part of why people’s hostility to it is able to flourish.
but i am disturbed by the pervasive narrative in online leftist spaces that people who research the human past are ignorant and bigoted, and i think we need to do more to combat that narrative.
historiansbeinghomophobichasbecomeawholememe, anditfeelslike people are just using historians as a homophobia scapegoat, when in reality the humanities are overwhelmingly left-leaning. people also keep blaming historians for erasing the homoeroticism of fictional literary characters, which is just… not what historians do. homophobic biases and erasures in the interpretation of history over the past few hundred years are a very real thing that’s important to learn about, but scholars have radically shifted away from that approach in recent generations, and these memes are not helping people outside the field to understand history and reception. instead, a lot of people are coming away with the impression that…
this thread gets bonus points for the comments claiming that modern historians argue about whether achilles was a top or a bottom using homophobic stereotypes, which i can only guess is a misunderstanding of the erastes/eromenos model (a relationship schema in classical greece; i think people have debated whether achilles and patroclus represent an early version of it). also a commenter claims that the movie troy invented the idea of achilles and patroclus being cousins when no, they were also cousins in lots of ancient sources.
there’s this post about roman dodecahedra (link includes explanation of why the original post is misleading).
there’s this thread about how some thin gold spirals from ancient denmark look exactly like materials used in gold embroidery to this day but archaeologists are stupid and don’t know that because they dont talk to embroiderers enough. in fact, the article says they were most likely used for decorating clothing, whether as a fringe, braided into hair, or embroidered. so the archaeologists in the article basically agree with the post, theyre just less certain about it, because an artifact looking similar to a modern device doesn’t necessarily mean they have identical uses.
this thread has a lot of people interpreting academic nuance as erasure. the museum label literally says that this kind of statue typically depicts a married couple, giving you the factual evidence so you can interpret it. it would be false to say “these two women are married” because there was no gay marriage in ancient egypt. (interpreting nuance as erasure or ignorance is a running theme here, and it points to a disconnect, a public ignorance of how history is studied, that we can very much remedy)
lots of other conspiracy theory-ish stuff about ancient egypt is common in social justice communities, which egyptologists on this site have done a good job of debunking
oh, and this kind of thing has been going around. the problem with it is that there are loads of marginalized academics who research things related to their own lives, and lived experience and rigorous research are different forms of expertise that are both valuable.
so why does this matter?
none of these are isolated incidents. for everything i’ve linked here, there are examples i havent linked. anti-intellectualism, especially against the humanities, is rampant lately across the political spectrum, and it’s very dangerous. it’s not the same as wanting to see and understand evidence for yourself, it’s not the same as criticizing institutions of academic research. it’s the assumption that scholars are out to get you and the perception that there is no knowledge to be gained from thorough study. that mindset is closely connected to the denial of (political, scientific, and yes historical) facts that we’ve been seeing all around us in recent years.
on a personal note, so many marginalized scholars are trying to survive the dumpster fire of academia because we care that much about making sure the stories that are too often unheard don’t get left out of history… and when that’s the entire focus of my life right now, it’s disheartening to see how many of my political allies are just going to assume the worst about the entire field
[image description: a text post that reads, “nobody hates gay people more than historians.” it’s tagged with “gay,” “ancient history,” “achilles and patroclus,” “historians,” “ancient greece,” “history.” end image description]
the absolute best thing about elementary, besides the entirety of it, is sherlock’s humanity.
he is not an arrogant asshole. he is not a “all of you shall bow before me.” does he have moments where he acts superior and puts people down? yes. but it’s never a fundamental part of his being. he is clever and skilled, yes, but it is not his personality. he isn’t just excused to be an asshole. it’s not just “oh that’s sherlock, the complete dickhead.” sherlock season 1 and sherlock season 7 are hardly the same person.
he admits his mistakes, hell, he fucking apologizes for them. he changes to be kind to people. his asshole arrogance is portrayed as a defense mechanism because he’s so lonely. he learns to be kind. he learns to love and he learns to be polite for the sake of it. he hates marriage, hates it, absolutely hates it, but he buys an expensive glass of champagne for a man proposing to his girlfriend, people he doesn’t know, without even hesitating. he comforts survivors of assault and does his best in being non-threatening whenever there’s someone who is in a delicate state of mind. he helps a girl who lied to him (to put it mildly) chose a new name and identity, to move on. he helps a victim of assult get revenge. he is willing to frame a murderer to stop him from killing others. he solves murders because he thinks it’s unfathomable not to.
he dates an autistic woman, and I’m not saying this in the “oh wow look he should be praised!” sort of way, i mean, he changes how he acts in order to make her more comfortable, he buys her a limited gift, he does things he isn’t comfortable doing, like clearly stating his feelings, in order to make her feel better. he reassures her when she needs it.
sherlock cares. he so fundamentally cares, about people he doesn’t know, about people he does. he threatens to kill his own brother if joan is even mildly hurt. he beats a man who hurt his friend, alfredo. he breaks the law in order to help friends of friends. he tries so hard to understand normal convention.
it isn’t like the majority of sherlock’s I’ve seen and read about. he deeply truly cares, he wants to be a part of functioning society, he helps because he can’t imagine not doing it. he tries to express his care and concern for people and fails sometimes because he can’t communicate with them.
it’s kind of stated that he’s possibly autistic and it fits in with his actions. his antisocial behavior isn’t because he’s a dick and thinks he’s better than everyone, it’s because there are so few he can express himself to, no matter how hard he tries.
he names a bee after watson. he calls her extraordinary and makes an effort to be kind to her.
he hates humanity, or he tries to, at least, but he loves people. he’s tried to fit in, to be someone people could be friends with, and got rejected, and now that he’s older, he’s trying to help people from the outside, trying to connect with people in a different way. he’s a tragic character in that sense, but it’s shown, it’s quite literally basically stated over and over, sherlock needspeople.
he’s desperate with it, really. he wants to talk to people but the majority don’t understand or aren’t willing to listen, so he finds shelter in other outcasts. he doesn’t hate the people who don’t understand him. he tries so hard to communicate with people.
and to sum this all up, here are some of the quotes im talking about.
S: It has its costs. W: What does? Learning to see the puzzle in everything. They’re everywhere. Once you start looking, it’s impossible to stop. It just so happens that people, with all the deceits and illusions that inform everything they do, tend to be the most facinating puzzles of all. Of course, they don’t always appreciate being seen as such. Seems like a lonely way to live. As I said. Has its costs.
a friend of sherlock’s: You can’t expect Sherlock Holmes to relate to you the way another person might. The moment you do, he’ll migrate out of your life, and you’ll be the poorer for it.
W: I texted you. You didn’t have to come. S: As I explained the other day, there’s nothing more hazardous to my health than boredom. Besides, I thought it might be nice to meet the ex. W: I’m pretty sure he’s not going to show. S: And here you sit. W: I’ll give him ten more minutes. If there’s someplace else you have to be… S: Not tonight, Watson. Not tonight.
Sherlock, after joan thanks him for making her family understand her job as a sober companion: I simply told them what they wanted to hear. They’re nice people, your family, but they are, at their core, conventional. You make an effort to appear conventional, but I know, Watson, that you share my love of all that is bizarre and outside the humdrum routine of ordinary life. Your family will never understand this, so I gave them some words that they would understand.
S: Realizing that you were in physical danger was difficult for me. If anything ever happened to you, I’m not sure I could forgive myself. W: Okay, this is not how you express concern for someone that you want to keep safe. Quite right, so I’ve reached out to a handful of martial artists who reside in the city, each one of them an expert in his or her fighting style. My hope is some combination of them will agree to train you.
these are all just from the first season.
and a few more, my personal favorites.
Misanthropy was so easy, Watson. Elegant. I miss it sometimes.
I was dying, and no one could see it but you.
S: You could have killed Agent Mattoo. And from your perspective, it would have been the expedient thing. Moriarty: And yet, to you, it would have been repugnant. Tell me, is that how you learned to be one of them? By learning to care how your actions seemed in the eyes of another? S: I’m not sure I am one of them.
W: You’re not the same person I met a year and a half ago. You’re- S: Good to you? Yeah. For the most part. I consider you to be exceptional. So I make an exceptional effort to accommodate you.
riz ahmed being the first muslim director to ever win an oscar, by directing a short film which was specifically about islamaphobia, and then making a speech saying “the role of story is to remind us that there is no us and them. there is just us. this is for everyone who feels like they don’t belong, anyone who feels like they’re stuck in no man’s land. you’re not alone. we’ll meet you there. that’s where the future is.” and NONE of it was live streamed so nobody got to SEE this monumental moment happen, and not even all the attendees were there yet because the academy prioritised red carpet outfits over ACTUAL WINNERS OF CRAFT… it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and makes me incredibly angry, gonna be real
Does anyone want to see the presentation I made on what historical fashion trends we should bring back and which should burn in hell I made for a PowerPoint party?
