burnt-out-blueberries

Latest Posts by burnt-out-blueberries

And here is the most devastating fact of Frank's posthumous success, which leaves her real experience forever hidden: we know what she would have said, because other people have said it, and we don't want to hear it.

The line most often quoted from Frank's diary are her famous words, "I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart." These words are "inspiring," by which we mean that they flatter us. They make us feel forgiven for those lapses of our civilization that allow for piles of murdered girls—and if those words came from a murdered girl, well, then, we must be absolved, because they must be true. That gift of grace and absolution from a murdered Jew (exactly the gift that lies at the heart of Christianity) is what millions of people are so eager to find in Frank's hiding place, in her writings, in her "legacy." It is far more gratifying to believe that an innocent dead girl has offered us grace than to recognize the obvious: Frank wrote about people being "truly good at heart" before meeting people who weren't. Three weeks after writing those words, she met people who weren't.

Here's how much some people dislike living Jews: they murdered 6 million of them. This fact bears repeating, as it does not come up at all in Anne Frank's writings. Readers of her diary are aware that the author was murdered in a genocide, but this does not mean that her diary is a work about genocide. If it were, it is unlikely that it would have been anywhere near as universally embraced.

We know this, because there is no shortage of writings from victims and survivors who chronicled this fact in vivid detail, and none of those documents have achieved anything like Frank's diary's fame. Those that have come close have only done so by observing those same rules of hiding, the ones that insist on polite victims who don't insult their persecutors The work that came closest to achieving Frank's international fame might be Elie Wiesel's Night, a memoir that could be thought of as a continuation of Frank's diary, recounting the tortures of a fifteen-year-old imprisoned in Auschwitz. As the scholar Naomi Seidman has discussed, Wiesel first published his memoir in Yiddish, under the title And the World Was Silent. The Yiddish book told the same story told in Night, but it exploded with rage against his family's murderers and, as the title implies, the entire world whose indifference (or active hatred) made those murders possible. With the help of the French Catholic Nobel laureate François Mauriac, Wiesel later published a French version under the new title La Nuit—a work that repositioned the young survivor's rage into theological angst. After all, what reader would want to hear about how this society had failed, how he was guilty? Better to blame G[-]d. This approach earned Wiesel a Nobel Peace Prize, as well as, years later, selection for Oprah's Book Club, the American epitome of grace. It did not, however, make teenage girls read his book in Japan, the way they read Frank's. For that he would have had to hide much, much more.

from "Everyone's (Second) Favorite Dead Jew" in People Love Dead Jews by Dara Horn, pp 9–10

Would you be willing to dunk on speak more on mainstream feminist theory you're reading? And/or share some of the non-juvenile feminist theory you've read?

(Note: I will try to link to open access versions of articles as much as possible, but some of them are paywalled. if the links dont work just type the titles into google and add pdf at the end, i found them all that way)

If there’s any one singular issue with mainstream feminist thought that can be generalized to "The Problem With Mainstream Feminism" (and by mainstream I mean white, cishet, bourgeois feminism, the “canonical feminism” that is taught in western universities) it’s that gender is treated as something that can stand by itself, by which I mean, “gender” is a complete unit of analysis from which to understand social inequality. You can “add” race, class, ability, national origin, religion, sexuality, and so on to your analysis (each likewise treated as full, discrete categories of the social world), but that gender itself provides a comprehensive (or at the very least “good enough”) view of a given social problem. (RW Connell, who wrote the canonical text Masculinities (1995) and is one of the feminist scholars who coined/popularized the term hegemonic masculinity, is a fantastic example of this.)

Black feminists have for many decades pointed out how fucking ridiculous this is, especially vis a vis race and class, because Black women do not experience misogyny and racism as two discrete forms of oppression in their lives, they are inextricably linked. The separation of gender and race is not merely an analytical error on the part of white feminists - it is a continuation of the long white supremacist tradition of bounding gender in exclusively white terms. Patricia Hill Collins in Black Feminist Thought (2000) engages with this via a speech by Sojourner Truth, the most famous line from her speech being “ain’t I a woman?” as she describes all the aspects of womanhood she experiences but is still denied the position of woman by white women because she is Black. Lugones in Coloniality of Gender (2008) likewise brings up the example of segregationist movements in the USAmerican South, where towns would put up banners saying things like “Protect Southern Women” as a rationale for segregation, making it very clear who they viewed as women. Sylvia Wynter in 1492: A New World View likewise points out that colonized women and men were treated like cattle by Spanish colonizers in South America, often counted in population measures as "heads of Indian men and women," as in heads of cattle. They were treated as colonial resources, not as gendered subjects capable of rational thought.

To treat the category of “woman” as something that stands by itself is a white supremacist understanding of gender, because “woman” always just means white woman - the fact that white is left implied is part of white supremacy, because who is granted subjecthood, the ability to be seen as human and therefore a gendered subject, is a function of race (see Quijano, 2000). Crenshaw (1991) operationalizes this through the term intersectionality, pointing out that law treats gender and race as separate social sites of discrimination, and the practical effect of this is that Black women have limited/no legal recourse when they face discrimination because they experience it as misogynoir, as the multiplicative effect of their position as Black women, not as sexism on the one hand and racism on the other.

Transfeminist theory has further problematized the category of gender by pointing out that "woman" always just means cis woman (and more often than not also means heterosexual woman). The most famous of these critiques comes from Judith Butler - I’m less familiar with their work, but there is a great example in the beginning of Bodies That Matter (1993) where they demonstrate that personhood itself is a gendered social position. They ask (and I’m paraphrasing) “when does a fetus stop becoming an ‘it’? When its gender is declared by a doctor or nurse via ultrasound.” Sex assignment is not merely a social practice of patriarchal division, it is the medium through which the human subject is created (and recall that gender is fundamentally racialized & race is fundamentally gendered, which I will come back to).

And the work of transfeminists demonstrate this by showing transgender people are treated as non-human, non-citizens. Heath Fogg Davis in Sex-Classification Policies as Transgender Discrimination (2014) recounts the story of an African American transgender woman in Pennsylvania being denied use of public transit, because her bus pass had an F gender marker on it (as all buss passes in the state required gender markers until 2013) and the bus driver refused her service because she “didn’t look like a woman.” She was denied access to transit again when she got her marker changed to M, as she “didn’t look like a man.” Transgender people are thus denied access to basic public services by being constructed as “administratively impossible” - gender markers are a component of citizenship because they appear on all citizenship documents, as well as a variety of civil and public documents (such as a bus pass). Gender markers, even when changed by trans people (an arduous, difficult process in most places on earth, if not outright impossible), are seen as fraudulent & used as a basis to deny us citizenship rights. Toby Beauchamp in Going Stealth: Transgender Politics & US Surveillance Practices (2019) talks about anti-trans bathroom bills as a form of citizenship denial to trans people - anti-trans bathroom laws are impossible to actually enforce because nobody is doing genital inspections of everyone who enters bathrooms (and genitals are not proof of transgenderism!), but that’s actually not the point. The point of these bills is to embolden members of the cissexual public to deputize themselves on behalf of the state to police access to public space, directing their cissexual gaze towards anyone who “looks transgender.” Beauchamp points out that transvestigators don’t need to be accurate most of the time, because again, the point is terrorizing transgender people out of public life. He connects this with racial segregation, and argues that we shouldn’t view gender segregation as “a new form of” racial segregation (this is a duplication of white supremacist feminism) but a continuation of it, because public access is a citizenship right and citizenship is fundamentally racially mediated (see Glenn's (2002) Unequal Freedom)

Susan Stryker & Nikki Sullivan further drives this home in The King’s Member, The Queen’s Body, where they explain the history of the crime of mayhem. Originating in feudal Europe (I don’t remember off the dome the exact time/place so forgive the generalization lol), mayhem is the crime of self-mutilation for the purposes of avoiding military conscription, but what is interesting is that its not actually legally treated as “self” mutilation, but a mutilation of the state and its capacity to exercise its own power. They link the concept of mayhem to the contemporary hysteria around transgender people receiving bottom surgery - we are not in fact self mutilating, we are mutilating the state’s ability to reproduce its own population by permanently destroying (in the eyes of the cissexual public) our capacity to form the foundational social unit of the nuclear family. Our bodies are not our own, they are a component of the state. Situating this in the context of reproductive rights makes this even clearer. Abortion access is not actually about the individual, it is the state mediating its own reproductive capacity via the restriction of abortion (premised on the cissexual logic of binary reproductive capacity systematized through sex assignment). Returning to Hill Collins, she points out that in the US, white cis women are restricted access to abortion while Black and Indigenous cis women are routinely forcibly sterilized, their children aborted, and pumped with birth control by the state. This is not a contradiction or point of “hypocrisy” on the part of conservatives, this is a fully comprehensive plan of white supremacist population management.

To treat "gender" as its own category, as much of mainstream feminism does (see Acker (1990) and England (2010) for two hilarious examples of this, both widely cited feminists), is to forward a white supremacist notion of gender. That white supremacy is fundamentally cissexual and heterosexual is not an accident - it is a central organizing logic that allows for the systematization of the fear of declining white birthrates (the conspiracy of "white genocide" is illegible without the base belief that there are two kinds of bodies, one that gets pregnant and one that does the impregnating, and that these two types of bodies are universal sources of evidence of the superiority of men over women - and im using those terms in the most loaded possible sense).

I realize that most of these readings are US centric, which is an unfortunate limitation of my own education. I have been really trying to branch into literature outside the Global North, but doctoral degree constraints + time constraints + my own research requires continual engagement with it. I also realize that most of the transfeminist readings I've cited are by white scholars! This is a continual systemic problem in academic literature and I'm not exempt from it, even as I sit here and lay out the problem. Which is to say, this is nowhere near the final word on this subject, and having to devote so much time to reading mainstream feminist theory as someone who is in western academia is part of my own limited education + perspective on this topic

Antisemitism Required Reading

I get a lot of ignorant comments & tags on my posts about antisemitism, and I’ve already spent way too much time & energy engaging with them. So to preserve my sanity, I’ve made the decision not to engage too deeply with any commenters who haven’t at least read all of these in their entirety:

“Jewish Space Lasers” by Mike Rothschild

“People Love Dead Jews” by Dara Horn

“Jews Don’t Count” by David Baddiel

"More Than a Century of Antisemitism", GEC Special Report

If you’re not Jewish, please read all of this literature before adding anything to my posts about antisemitism.

Jews, please add any books you think should be on the list!

holding onto this again:

it will not be like this forever. sometimes this is how it ends

anyway cicero

if only cicero HAD chosen catullus for his son-in-law.

November in the Sherlock Holmes Canon

Nothing retains its own form; but nature, the great renewer, ever makes up forms from other forms. Be sure there's nothing perishes in the whole universe; it does but vary and renew its form. What we call birth is but a beginning to be other than what one was before; and death is but cessation of a former state. Though, perchance, things may shift from there to here and here to there, still do all things in their sum total remain unchanged.

Metamorphoses

Ovid

today!

I'm reading about the Victorian Aesthetic movement and I was violently reminded of...

...Sherlock Holmes's 'rose monologue' from The Naval Treaty, HI HELLO CAN ANYONE HEAR ME

The number one phrase I have adopted into my lexicon from ACD Sherlock Holmes is all the times Watson says “I cudgeled my brains” when he’s trying and failing to think through a mystery. Huge mood, deeply relatable, I too spend far too much time cudgeling my brains with no real result

the swagful magistrate ⁉️

do yall know about this

There lived a certain man, a proconsul of Gaul He was lean and sharp and his head was almost bald Most people looked at him with envy and awe But to Cato, he thought himself above the law He had conquered Gaul and asked the Senate For a triumph through their town And to run for consul - he could win it But they said "Stand down."

Ra ra Julie C., Nicomedes' teenage fling There was a man who couldn't let go Ra ra Julie C., really wanted to be king It was a shame how he stole the show

He crossed the Rubicon, invaded his own home But the Pompeians had already fled from Rome With hardly any fights he captured Italy Though Spain and Greece didn't come so easily He got nearly slaughtered by Dyrrhachium And the next four years of strife But he won and had the Senate make him Dictator for life

Ra ra Julie C., Cleopatra's Roman fling There was a man who couldn't let go Ra ra Julie C., really wanted to be king It was a shame how he stole the show

But as his bogus elections and his hunger for power Became known to more and more people The conspiracy to assassinate This man became bigger and bigger

"This Caesar's gotta go," declared his enemies But a new war loomed and he'd soon go overseas No doubt this dictator was difficult to harm And within Rome's walls, they couldn't carry arms Then they thought, a meeting of the Senate Fit just right, for on the Ides He would be alone for just a minute And Caesar would die

Ra ra Julie C., every Roman woman's fling They had him cornered, took out their knives Ra ra Julie C., really wanted to be king He grabbed a pen and fought for his life Ra ra Julie C., emperor foreshadowing They didn't quit, they wanted his head Ra ra Julie C., Brutus jabbed his ding-a-ling And so they stabbed him till he was dead

Oh, those Romans…

Saw this in my Roman economics book and I just had to sit there stunned for a moment. The fastest growing economy in the 1600s hit 0.2%. For comparison, the average country's growth last year was 2.7% (in real GDP), or thirteen times as much. A huge portion of that is thanks to improvements in human capital: public schools, healthcare, improved access to nutrition, and social safety nets. Another big part, the rate of technological progress, increases in proportion to human capital. I suspect that reduced prevalence of war also plays a role.

Like shit, man, if I were a rational capitalist, I should want higher taxes if the money would go to public education, mental health and addiction recovery programs, low-income assistance, and universal healthcare. I should be more anti-war than the goddamn Pope. The slight increase in my tax rate would be plenty offset by the improved skills and productivity of my workers, the disposable income of my customers, and decreases in my personal cost of healthcare and education.

But that's a rational, impartial capitalist. Someone who isn't beholden to shareholders, or trying to win votes. One of the weirdest things in economics is how individuals trying to do what's profitable for themselves can produce less profitable outcomes for everyone, including themselves.

(From "Human Capital and Economic Growth" by Richard Saller, in The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy, ed. Walter Scheidel.)

girl with 97 tabs open at a time with different articles and sites on every different subject because there is so much Knowledge to be Absorbed

Notes on "The Contribution of Economics" by Peter Temín, in The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy, ed. Walter Scheidel:

There are two main purposes of this article. First, to argue that economic theory is applicable to the classical world. Second, to introduce a few economic ideas that classicists and historians may find useful in their work.

I gotta be honest, I'm not a fan of Temín's writing style. Usually, I can overlook that, but in an essay about abstract concepts aimed at non-specialists, I think clarity and conciseness matter more. Several parts of this were hard for me to follow, and I like economics.

Temín might have some...interesting ideas elsewhere about monetary policy and the Great Depression, and in this article he's oddly accepting of the original Malthusian model. These points by themselves do not necessarily mean he is unreliable, or a crackpot, or politically motivated. It's also possible that the Wikipedia article is wrong. But economics is a controversial and politically charged field, so I try to be alert for biased sources.

In short, I don't know whether I can automatically trust Temín's claims about the classical world the way I would trust most authors in a Cambridge-published anthology. (I am also biased because I prefer Keynesian economics, which contradict the views Wiki attributed to Temín.)

So, what is Temín actually claiming?

First, he argues that the Roman world did operate according to competitive market forces, in a similar way that modern markets do. I actually think this is a very solid claim. Our written and material evidence seems to back it up.

Temín describes how supply and demand curves work, how comparative advantage could enable Rome and her colonies to both become wealthier through trade, how technological innovation improved productivity, and how incomes could rise and fall in response to plagues, peace, and wars. Most of his explanations here are normal, useful concepts explained in a rather dense way.

His explanation of Malthusian economics is...not wrong, or irrelevant, but I found it concerning that he didn't include the limitations or criticisms of the Malthusian model. It may be applicable to the Roman economy, I don't know, but I feel like you need to keep such claims very narrow and within a specific context.

He briefly mentions of Babylonian commodity prices exhibiting random walks a la modern stocks - see Temín, P. (2002) “Price behavior in ancient Babylon,” Explorations in Economic History 39: 46–60.

He also says wheat markets in the late republic exhibited competition that suggests the land was not being consolidated by large latifundia until the imperial era - see Rosenstein, N. (2008) “Aristocrats and agriculture in the Middle and Late Republic,” Journal of Roman Studies 98: 1–26.

I'm including the citations here because these are "HOLY SHIT"-level claims if you're interested in the Gracchi brothers or efficient market theory, but Temín zips past them and goes back to talking about Econ 101 material. I gotta check these out later!

On the whole, a mildly interesting article. But if you're a classics or history major who needs a crash course in economics, grab The Cartoon Introduction to Economics instead.

Malthusianism? That Malthusianism, the "theory" that human populations always eventually grow to the level that resources and technology can sustain, thus perpetuating a long-term equilibrium of general poverty, and that permanent improvements in standard of living are impossible? Repeated uncritically in my Roman history book, published in the year of Our Lord Hatsune Miku 2012?

At last! Something the socialists, libertarians, feminists and Catholics can all agree on! Someone give ol' Mathus a medal!

Some economists believe Malthusianism has some credibility, at least in limited contexts. Others think it's been wholly discredited. I've linked the Wiki article above so you can judge for yourself.

Personally, I'm very skeptical. I don't see why human birth rates would automatically, and always, increase to match what the environment's resources can support. Global fertility has been dropping for a while, and most estimates now expect the population to start leveling off around 10-12 billion. The effect is even more pronounced when you look at industrialized countries that have gone through demographic transitions.

I also think the Malthusian model overlooks cultural factors that influence people's reproductive choices. E.g. many people in the USA delay having children due to time spent in college, building careers, and lack of paid maternity leave. And many people I know choose not to have biological children now that it's socially acceptable.

That's just my view. I can understand why Temín thought the Malthusian model might be more applicable for the agrarian society of ancient Rome. But since the point of his article was to introduce useful economic ideas for classicists to use in their work, I think he should have discussed the serious criticism Malthusianism has received, too.

(First excerpt from Peter Temín, "The Contribution of Economics," in The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy, ed. Walter Scheidel.)

Here's THE masterpost of free and full adaptations, by which I mean that it's a post made by the master.

Anthony and Cleopatra: here's the BBC version, here's a 2017 version.

As you like it: you'll find here an outdoor stage adaptation and here the BBC version. Here's Kenneth Brannagh's 2006 one.

Coriolanus: Here's a college play, here's the 1984 telefilm, here's the 2014 one with tom hiddleston. Here's the Ralph Fiennes 2011 one.

Cymbelline: Here's the 2014 one.

Hamlet: the 1948 Laurence Olivier one is here. The 1964 russian version is here and the 1964 american version is here. The 1964 Broadway production is here, the 1969 Williamson-Parfitt-Hopkins one is there, and the 1980 version is here. Here are part 1 and 2 of the 1990 BBC adaptation, the Kenneth Branagh 1996 Hamlet is here, the 2000 Ethan Hawke one is here. 2009 Tennant's here. And have the 2018 Almeida version here. On a sidenote, here's A Midwinter's Tale, about a man trying to make Hamlet.

Henry IV: part 1 and part 2 of the BBC 1989 version. And here's part 1 of a corwall school version.

Henry V: Laurence Olivier (who would have guessed) 1944 version. The 1989 Branagh version here. The BBC version is here.

Julius Caesar: here's the 1979 BBC adaptation, here the 1970 John Gielgud one. A theater Live from the late 2010's here.

King Lear: Laurence Olivier once again plays in here. And Gregory Kozintsev, who was I think in charge of the russian hamlet, has a king lear here. The 1975 BBC version is here. The Royal Shakespeare Compagny's 2008 version is here. The 1974 version with James Earl Jones is here. The 1953 Orson Wells one is here.

Macbeth: Here's the 1948 one, there the 1955 Joe McBeth. Here's the 1961 one with Sean Connery, and the 1966 BBC version is here. The 1969 radio one with Ian McKellen and Judi Dench is here, here's the 1971 by Roman Polanski, with spanish subtitles. The 1988 BBC one with portugese subtitles, and here the 2001 one). Here's Scotland, PA, the 2001 modern retelling. The Royal Shakespeare Compagny's 2008 version is here. Rave Macbeth for anyone interested is here. And 2017 brings you this.

Measure for Measure: BBC version here. Hugo Weaving here.

The Merchant of Venice: here's a stage version, here's the 1980 movie, here the 1973 Lawrence Olivier movie, here's the 2004 movie with Al Pacino. The 2001 movie is here.

The Merry Wives of Windsor: the Royal Shakespeare Compagny gives you this movie.

A Midsummer Night's Dream: have this sponsored by the City of Columbia, and here the BBC version. Have the 1986 Duncan-Jennings version here. 2019 Live Theater version? Have it here!

Much Ado About Nothing: Here is the kenneth branagh version and here the Tennant and Tate 2011 version. Here's the 1984 version.

Othello: A Massachussets Performance here, the 2001 movie her is the Orson Wells movie with portuguese subtitles theree, and a fifteen minutes long lego adaptation here. THen if you want more good ole reliable you've got the BBC version here and there.

Richard II: here is the BBC version. If you want a more meta approach, here's the commentary for the Tennant version. 1997 one here.

Richard III: here's the 1955 one with Laurence Olivier. The 1995 one with Ian McKellen is no longer available at the previous link but I found it HERE.

Romeo and Juliet: here's the 1988 BBC version. Here's a stage production. 1954 brings you this. The french musical with english subtitles is here!

The Taming of the Shrew: the 1980 BBC version here and the 1988 one is here, sorry for the prior confusion. The 1929 version here, some Ontario stuff here, and here is the 1967 one with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. This one I'm not quite sure what it is or when it's from, it's a modern retelling.

The Tempest: the 1979 one is here, the 2010 is here. Here is the 1988 one. Theater Live did a show of it in the late 2010's too.

Timon of Athens: here is the 1981 movie with Jonathan Pryce,

Troilus and Cressida can be found here

Titus Andronicus: the 1999 movie with Anthony Hopkins here

Twelfth night: here for the BBC, here for the 1970 version with Alec Guinness, Joan Plowright and Ralph Richardson.

Two Gentlemen of Verona: have the 2018 one here.

The Winter's Tale: the BBC version is here

Please do contribute if you find more. This is far from exhaustive.

(also look up the original post from time to time for more plays)

📺

From the ask game: 📺 - Favourite show?

It's gotta be Yes Minister, a British political comedy from the 1980s. It follows the newly-elected, party-unspecified minister Jim Hacker in his attempts to fix problems and survive government bureaucracy. Usually, he fails. Sometimes, this is for the best. He is a short-sighted, rather panicky politician, after all.

The writing, acting, directing, and humor are incredibly, consistently great, and it's held up remarkably well for its age. I think much of that is because the conflicts are based on real events and conflicts of interest, rather than putting down "the other side" or minorities. (When Jim says something ignorant, he is the butt of the joke.) This also makes the show pretty bipartisan. Even the main antagonist, Humphrey of the civil service, is likable, clever, and occasionally in the right.

If you watch it, get the original, not the remakes. Nigel Hawthorne and Paul Eddington are national treasures.

These are amazing — and shockingly accurate. Did you know there’s a “Bechdel test” for female scientist biographies?

Follow @the-future-now​

Warning signs of fascist themes in history media

Fascism is a reactionary, authoritarian and nationalist ideology that opposes peace, democracy, and human rights. Fascists are sometimes attracted to history because they use it to promote violence and myths of racial superiority. Fascist ideas can be found in certain books, movies, social media, Youtube channels and more.

Here I'm going to talk about general patterns to help you recognize fascist shit when you see it, examples I've seen in Roman history studies, and suggestions for what you can do about it.

Fascist themes

I have focused on themes rather than specific dogwhistles, arguments, or symbols, because fascist rhetoric often disguises itself to appear more palatable, and varies across countries. Themes are also useful for analyzing books, podcasts, and other media where political bias isn't always obvious. For specific fascist code-words and symbols, see the links at the end of this post.

Not every item on this list will appear for every fascist, and not every person who does one of these things is a fascist. But any of them should warn you to be on alert.

1. Fascism is reactionary.

Fascism rejects the modern, changing world. Fascists feel like the "natural order" or "old way of life" is threatened and must be preserved. They may call themselves conservatives or traditionalists, but their methods and goals are more radical and disruptive than traditional conservatism.

Fascists often feel like they have been attacked, humiliated, or left out of their rightful place in society. They resent groups of people they believe are getting undeserved benefits or respect. These groups are usually minorities such as immigrants, Jews, queer people, women or racial minorities. The fascist may believe these groups are involved in a conspiracy to undermine or corrupt "decent" people, or to abuse children.

Be especially alert for antisemitism, which accounts for a large number of hate crimes, and has been a key part of most fascist movements.

The fascist portrays modern society as weak, corrupt, degenerate, or oppressive to people like himself.

In history media, this may appear as nostalgia for the past, "reject modernity, return to tradition," and romanticizing a primitive or traditional aesthetic. It can also show up as whitewashing the "heroic" culture and vilifying other cultures, or erasing the existence of minorities from history altogether. The fascist may downplay historical injustices like slavery and the exclusion of women from the workforce.

2. Fascism is authoritarian.

The "natural order" of the fascist is hierarchical, with some people mattering more than others. Those on the bottom of society are there because they deserve it, and their struggles and feelings don't matter. If they demand equal rights, assistance programs or respect, they are seen as entitled, lazy, whiny, and arrogant. Naturally, the fascist assumes his place is at or near the top of the hierarchy.

The fascist usually opposes ambiguity and crossing boundaries - mixed race couples, cultural exchange, women in mostly-male jobs, trans and gender-nonconforming people - because these undermine the artificial divisions in the fascist hierarchy.

A powerful central authority is seen as necessary to fix society. To be good requires obedience; to disagree makes you a traitor.

If the fascist has a leader, that leader is idolized and unquestioned. The fascist leader is typically charismatic, masculine, and "tough on crime." The fascist denies any wrongdoing from the leader, minimizes or tries to justify it.

Opposition to democracy, because democracy requires dissent. The legislature is de-legitimized as representing the people's will, and elections are called fraudulent without evidence. The fascist sees rule of law as a hindrance to "reforming" society. (This separates the fascist from the "mainstream" conservative, who usually cares more about upholding the status quo.)

Many fascists will project authoritarianism onto their opponents because they assume those opponents also view the world this way, just with a different group on top.

In history media this may appear as glorifying anti-democratic leaders, justifying violence as necessary, or denying that shameful events like the Holocaust happened. The fascist is also likely to portray democracy, defense attorneys, and civil rights activists as obstacles to doing "what needs to be done."

3. Fascism is nationalistic.

Fascists usually identify strongly with a certain nation, culture, or race. Different kinds of people are seen as inherently different in moral character, intellectual ability, or skills. You are encouraged to derive your worth from this group identity and to treat other people based on theirs.

This group is elevated at the expense of individual human rights. The fascist only values freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the rights of the accused for himself and his allies. People who are inferior or who disagree are not granted those same rights.

This offers a sense of identity and pride for people whose identity is feels unstable or threatened. It preys upon the lonely, the disillusioned, the failures. Historically, most fascist support comes from middle-class people who feel insecure about their place in the world, and angered by the rise of groups they see as beneath them.

4. Fascism is anti-intellectual.

Although fascists are attracted to history, they are usually more interested in using history as a prop for their mythic struggle of good and evil than in learning what history actually was.

Fascists will readily cherry-pick events and stories that feel glorious, exciting or romantic, or which feed their belief of being victimized. They will ignore or distort information that contradicts this, like historical multiculturalism and facts that make the "glorious race/empire" look bad.

The fascist may also combine myths, occult symbols, or historical details with no connection to each other, looking for a "deep underlying truth" that academics have missed (because it doesn't exist).

Fascists often try to discredit scientists, historians and the humanities. They may accuse "ivory-tower intellectuals" of being wrong, worthless, elitist or out of touch, or even creating a conspiracy to hide the truth. By framing intellectuals as the enemy, the fascist gives himself an excuse not to listen to them or doubt his fantasy of superiority.

When fascists present their own intellectuals, these intellectuals usually fixate on denouncing modern society and supporting fascist ideology, not on new discoveries or creativity. In the fascist mindset, all important truths are already known, all cultural and moral questions are already solved. Art can only conform to accepted standards, not challenge standards or create anything new.

Self-contradiction and hypocrisy. Fascist ideology appeals to people's feelings, not their logic. The enemy is both strong (to present a credible threat) and weak (so they can be held in contempt). The genocide didn't happen - and if it did, it wasn't really that bad. It's wrong for others to offend us, but we are justified in harassing or attacking them.

Intolerance of disagreement and dissent. The fascist mistakes feeling uncomfortable for being harmed, and thus any statements that make him feel uncomfortable, must be attacks from bad people. Critics must be shamed, mocked, harassed into silence, or expelled. Changing your mind is a sign of weakness.

Black and white morality / intolerance of nuance. The fascist has already decided that some people are right, period, and others are wrong, period. There is no room for morally complicated situations or mutual responsibility.

In-group jargon and redefining words. The fascist may refer to his opponents as slurs, say "pedophile" when he means "gay people," or invent new slang, dogwhistles and acronyms. This word-shuffling builds a sense of connection with other fascists, helps to dehumanize the enemy, and allows fascists to deny that they're bad people because they're not using specific bad words. (A fascist may complain about "Zionists" when he means "Jews," use Norse runes instead of swastikas, or say he's "proud of his heritage" instead of a white supremacist.)

In history media, look for dogwhistles, narratives with clear "good guys" and "bad guys," claims of a conspiracy among intellectuals or bankers, and contradictions. Does the text try to persuade you with evidence and logic, or with emotional appeals? Does it downplay or erase facts that would undermine the author's argument?

5. Fascism is violent.

Glorification of violence and war. Fascists believe that violence against their enemies is both necessary and justified to "defend their way of life," or protect society. They exult in shows of physical strength and aggression, and see physical weakness as pathetic. Weapons may be glorified and fetishized as well.

This can also extend to sexual violence and domination. The woman is an accessory to macho fantasies: an object of conquest, a prize to be flaunted and defended, a symbol of the man's own success and competence. A man who feels humiliated or threatened by a woman, perhaps because she rejected or outranked him, may threaten rape to "put her in her place."

The cult of heroic death. To overcome people's natural instinct to live, fascism glorifies veterans and martyrs, and encourages people to identify with and fight for the nation/race. Courage and strength are equated with violence. The costs of war are ignored - homelessness, starvation, massacres, grief, lifelong trauma and disability for many - even on the "winning" side.

Opposition to peace. Pacifists and neutral parties are considered traitors. Compromise is seen as giving in to the enemy. "You are either with us or against us."

Fascist justice centers on punishment, enforcing obedience and purging "bad people" rather than rehabilitation, education, or providing adequate social services.

In history media, look for an emphasis on the military, weapons, symbols of power, brutality, conquest, and sexual violence. Are these things equated with masculinity, power or success? Are we encouraged to identify with the conqueror instead of the conquered? Does the narrative mention people who opposed the war, or are they erased or lumped in with traitors?

6. Fascism is mean-spirited.

You probably noticed resentment, insecurity, anger and contempt in the previous sections. Fascism appeals to these emotions within people, and tells them that their unhappiness is other people's fault.

In fascist communities and blogs you will often see these same negative feelings, and externalized blame. Less overt fascist spaces may seem supportive, friendly, or just like hobbyists having fun, and this draws vulnerable people in. But it's juxtaposed with a deep disrespect for those who are seen as inferior.

Fascist jokes and memes are usually predicated on smugness (at being part of a "superior" race or nation), contempt (for "lesser" people), anger, or violent fantasies. They have a mean streak and may appear ironic ("It's just a joke, lighten up"), for the sake of plausible deniability.

The fascist does not merely hate that the "Other" exists (although they often do) - they resent being expected to treat others with respect, empathy and equality. They may demonize empathy by calling others "special snowflakes" who are trying to enforce "political correctness" or restrict freedom of speech. These are deflections so the fascist can avoid admitting how unreasonable and hurtful his behavior actually is.

Pay attention to how specific communities and media make you feel. Do you feel like you're becoming angrier or more fearful of the world over time? Do you feel less respect for certain kinds of people than you used to, or see the world's problems as those people's fault? If so, those spaces and media may be unhealthy for you, and could be promoting prejudice.

Example red flags I've seen in Roman history studies

Exulting over the Roman empire's size.

War being portrayed as exciting, heroic or brave.

Arguing that conquest (especially Caesar's conquest of Gaul) was justified.

Praising the emperors Vespasian, Titus or Hadrian uncritically - all of whom were involved in brutal oppression of Jewish people.

Arguing that Roman slavery was "not that bad" compared to other forms of slavery.

Unironically calling non-Romans barbarians, savages, or primitive.

Erasure of Rome's cultural and ethnic diversity, the role of women in politics, and queer history.

Portraying the end of free elections, debate, and political opposition as a good thing, particularly under Julius Caesar or Augustus.

Attributing the fall of Rome to "moral decline" or "degeneracy."

Attraction to symbols of power and famous military leaders - legions, centurion armor, idolizing Caesar, even the word "fascism" comes from the Latin fasces.

Falsely claiming that the Nazi salute originated with the Romans. (It's a neoclassical invention.)

Now, just because you see these red flags doesn't automatically mean the person is a fascist. Sometimes people use a word or meme without realizing its implications, and older works often say things that would be offensive today. That's another reason why I focused on general themes.

Look at the underlying patterns in what a person or work is saying, and think about what they want you to believe. As a whole, does it seem reactionary, authoritarian, nationalist, anti-intellectual, pro-violence, and/or mean-spirited? Conversely, if the person or work seems to value open-mindedness, democracy, education, peace, empathy, feminism, and multiculturalism, and if they treat those who disagree with them with respect, those are all good signs.

How should you respond?

A full guide to fighting fascism is beyond the scope of this post. I suggest contacting human rights groups in your area for the best ways to counter fascism in general.

For media with fascist themes or by fascist creators:

Do not share, recommend, or give it a wider audience. Even if it's "just a funny meme," spreading it can give fascists more followers, and make them more confident to attempt violence.

Do not spend money that will support fascist creators, organizers, or groups if you can avoid it. Don't buy their books, anime, hockey team apparel, whatever. Boycott them and tell people why.

Call it what it is. Fascist, racist, white supremacist, or whatever label applies. Don't use euphemisms for the sake of politeness - that only helps fascism appear respectable.

Post or share critical reviews that explain why the media is fascist. This will help others learn to recognize and call out fascism, too.

Sometimes people are attracted to controversial works just to be contrarian or to see what the controversy is about. You might decide it's more effective to avoid naming fascist works and giving them more publicity, and instead to call out the fascist ideas in them, to educate others. This is the approach I took in this post, but which method is better depends on the situation.

Don't use "fascist" for any bigot, conservative, or person you dislike. This waters the word down and makes it less likely to be taken seriously when a real hate group is threatening people. Fascism is a particularly violent, extreme, and anti-democratic type of bigotry. But when you DO see fascism, name and shame it.

If it's on social media or a blog, do not respond to it directly. Make a new post instead debunking it. This will avoid giving the fascists a broader audience, and they're less likely to notice and threaten you. Block and report them; try to get their communities removed from the platform. On a large enough scale, this helps prevent fascist groups from organizing and expanding their membership.

Read, watch, and promote non-fascist media and sources, like I do in my book reviews and favorites page. Bonus points if you can find sources for historical diversity and multiculturalism!

Further resources

This is an updated version of my older post, based on my notes from Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism and Stuart Hood's Fascism: A Graphic Guide. I also found Miriam Griffin's A Companion to Julius Caesar anthology useful for understanding how fascism and other political movements have co-opted Roman history for their own purposes.

The Alt-Right Playbook video series deconstructs fascist and alt-right arguments, and explains how they gain traction in politics, particularly in the USA.

Subtler signs of fascism: What are dogwhistles? / List of dogwhistles (incomplete) / List of hate symbols / Early Warning Signs of Fascism

Art Spiegelman's graphic novel Maus is a memoir of the Holocaust from the viewpoint of an Auschwitz survivor and his son. It is much darker and more visceral than the preceding books, but also valuable for demonstrating what fascism looks like "on the ground" when it gains power, and the consequences if we do not fight against it.

If you or someone you love has gotten involved with hate groups, Life After Hate offers support and counseling. Also check out QAnon Casualties - Resources, even if the group isn't QAnon. Your past doesn't have to define your future.

For good sources on Roman history, I have a page of recommended media, including links to resources on queer history, Black history, disability studies, women in classical antiquity, and my tips for evaluating whether a history book is reliable.

I am not a historian or political theorist. If I got something wrong or if you have additional helpful info, please don't hesitate to say so!

you disagreed w me in an intellectually honest way. we're friends now.

normalest guy ever 👍

Startin' to think this Caesar fella ain't a real great judge of character

hey you're doing a great job, just remember: a semicolon can be used to combine two sentences where you might otherwise use a period; this allows you to create longer and longer run-on sentences

I'm enjoying The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy so far, but it's rather high level, and it's been a few years since I last studied economics. So, I picked up a little refresher. And read the whole thing in a day.

The Cartoon Introduction to Economics, by Grady Klein and Yoram Bauman, is very, very good.

Graphic novels are great for bringing dry subjects to life. Klein and Bauman's examples show that economics is about people making choices, and their choices affecting each other's lives:

And it helps put abstract concepts into concrete terms:

The text is funny and easy to follow, even if you hate math and know nothing about economics. I think it's a very good introduction to how capitalism is supposed to work, in theory. You can certainly criticize capitalism - I do - but these books will show you the nature of the beast that we're up against.

It's very difficult for an economics book to be politically neutral. But Klein and Bauman's work is factual, avoids strongly right-wing or left-wing slants, and they acknowledge systemic problems like colonialism, exploitation of poor communities, and climate change. They also offer a few suggestions for addressing these problems. The books are USA-centric but include examples from other countries, too.

Oh yeah, there's actually two books. One for micro-economics, and one for macro-economics.

Microeconomics looks at a single individual, business, or market. So volume one covers:

Marginal utility and cost

Supply and demand

Cost-benefit analysis

How markets self-organize and stabilize

Auctions

Risk

How interest rates work

Present vs. future value of a good

Information asymmetry

What makes a market competitive or not

Game theory, including the prisoner's dilemma and the tragedy of the commons

How taxation affects markets

Price and demand elasticity

Macroeconomics looks at an entire economy, or multiple economies, and how they interact. Volume two explores:

Gross Domestic Product

How to measure quality of life

Monetary policy and fiscal policy

Unemployment

Inflation and deflation

Classical vs. Keynesian economics

Free trade vs. protectionism

Aging populations

Currency exchange

Foreign aid and exploitation

Climate change and pollution

Addressing global poverty and inequality

Strategies for mitigating economic crashes

However, these books do not cover:

Marxist and socialist views of economics

Effects of colonialism and discrimination

The role of unions

Social safety nets

Indigenous and traditional societies' economics

Behavioral economics

Personal finance

Stock markets

What causes economic bubbles and crashes

And probably more things I forgot

They're not a substitute for a real textbook or college course. But they're a great starting point, and a fun read.

The mutuals were so right. Reading On Self-Respect by Joan Didion DOES stop you from losing your fucking mind