I VOTED WOOP

why do you think a lot of historians don't think that alexander (and, by extension, other people in history) was gay? sorry if this is worded strangely by the way

Anon I’m not yelling at you I love you but I have to yell because everyone on tumblr spreads such bad misinformation. NO HISTORIANS THINK ALEXANDER WAS STRAIGHT. NOR ANY OTHER OLD TIME GAYS. LITERALLY NONE. THIS IS A MYTH PERPETUATED ON TUMBLR AND IT ISNT REAL STOP BELIEVING IT IM LOSING MY MIND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay. Now that I am. Calm. Sorry. Even tho plenty of historians were homophobic back in like last century — no one currently writing, period — they still could not DENY that Alexander who kept a MALE CONCUBINE , FUCKED MEN. Even the MOST homophobic ones were like “it was his worst vice” but they couldn’t DENY it. NOBODY EVER sorry normal volume nobody ever denied it in the whole history of the world never. Never. No one. That is fake. People who say that do not know what they are talking about.

On the OTHER hand , historians will say that for example Hamilton was “straight” because there IS NO DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE OTHERWISE. no, a few gay letters are not hard evidence. YES, male friendship mores were WAY DIFFERENT in old times, and it’s WAY too much extrapolation to assume from a few gay sounding TO US letters that he was fucking that twink Laurens. That is BAD METHODOLOGY. that is not homophobic it is BAD METHODOLOGY. you cannot publish that kind of thing cuz it’s simply not got enough evidence. I don’t care if they probably were, there is EMPIRICALLY NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE.

Okay. Also. Last point. l hate the misinformation on this hell site. Last point.

Gay and straight were not labels that existed until the late 1800s. Historians do not write about sexuality in terms of gay and straight because gay and straight did not exist as we know them to people prior to the late 1800s. We can only judge how people in history had sex based on their actions. If a historian says Alexander wasn’t gay or bi it isn’t because they’re saying he didn’t fuck men. It’s because they’re saying it’s extremely reductive and bad scholarship to ascribe modern definitions of sexuality and modern sexual mores to the ancient world. When we’re just hanging out and talking one on one or casually, no problem saying gay and straight! It helps us conceptialize how they lived! It’s something we understand. But in a PAPER you are trying to PUBLISH, you CANNOT say that because it misinterprets the workings of their society.

Okay. Thank you. I hope this clears things up for every dumbass who makes those posts and misinforms my innocent fellow classics people who are new and do not know. I hate y’all. Not you anon. Y’all who peddle this ….. homophobia nonsense. Stop it

Graduation

I did a graduate. Am graduate. Did a graduating. Time for summer then college. Wooo

Ehhh?

Do you ever just wanna cry because the cutest greatest girl, the first you've had crush in life, is straight? ;-;

Again, if you follow me for starkid or other fandom stuff, follow @r-we-taire-yet because I actually post things on there. This blog is only used occasionally for random history stuff because I'm going into it as a career.

Age: i'm guessing 15 but i could be wrong ?

17 actually, turning 18 in October.

I wanna hear these Opinions on steampunk color palettes, if you’re willing.

tbh “the Victorians did not go to the trouble of inventing aniline dyes so that we could wear neutrals” mostly covers it?

they went to a lot of effort to bring affordable screaming bright fuchsias and acid greens into the world, and we should honor their tacky, tacky choices.

When I was in second grade I was targeted by my teacher for isolation and harassment. If you got a ticket for misbehavior you didn't get to sit and watch a movie and eat candy with the rest of the kids on Friday, and every single week without fail I was sitting to the side alone. Half way through the year she switched it so tickets were for good behavior and you got to see the movie and eat candy and if you didn't get one, you had to sit alone. She scared me so badly that my already existing reading issues got worse and I just could not read or learn to read. She was young too, basically a new teacher, totally taking out her frustrations on kids and targeting me for her basically abuse. The administration was actually listening though, and was going to investigate her about getting her license revoked. Still, you shouldn't get a license in the first place if you're like this.

Something needs to be done about teachers who hate kids tbh

DIIIISSSSSNNNEEEEYYYY

So I'm going to Disney on Wednesday. I may post pictures or videos for you guys but for the most part I will not be on I'm gonna try to get my Friday letter in but we'll see what happens. I will be mostly inactive from the 6th to the 11th though. Sorry, guys! This is my first time at Disney and I'm soooo excited!

I'm having a hard idea coming up with an exact point, but I want to talk a bit about my field of expertise. I have a master's degree in history and work in a museum. I know so many people who are leaving the museum field (or who never got in) because it's extremely underfunded so people are overworked and underpaid. Budgets are precarious so most people are working contract to contract because institutions simply can't commit to hiring people permanently. MANY museums have one person doing the work of 3-5 people and they're making little over minimum wage. Burnout is a huge issue.

I hit the jackpot when I snagged a permanent full time position in a museum with a relatively healthy workplace culture. I make just enough to make ends meet and pay my student loans, and that's more than I can say for most of the people my age I know in the museum field.

But people constantly complain that our museum is only open 8 hours a day, six days a week, that we don't offer more public programs, that we don't have more exhibit changes. Meanwhile our budget, which comes from the government, has been status quo for almost a decade. That means we have the same budget now as we did ten years ago, even as the cost of utilities, staff, insurance, everything had increased. My museum is running on what is essentially a skeleton staff. We need 12 more people to have a comfortable distribution of duties and 23 to reach our full potential. (We have 24 permanent staff so we essentially need to double our work force).

People want their museums (and their libraries and art galleries and many other institutions) to offer endless, cutting edge services but they aren't willing to pay a small tax hike to fund them. People honestly think it's perfectly reasonable to expect a museum to expand its services when its budget has essentially been cut every year for a decade.

Museum exhibits and programs don't appear out of thin air. They take weeks, months, sometimes years of research, writing, conservation work, graphic design, and community consultations. Before they even start to be installed! The people behind each of these parts have specialized education and training. And most of them are making a bit over minimum wage if they're lucky.

People work in museums because we're passionate about them, but that doesn't pay the bills! People love their local museums until it's time to fund them. People love to complain about what their museum isn't offering but grumble and groan when a museum tries to fundraise from its community.

Basically if you want cultural institutions in your community you need to support them! If you can't donate, visit! TONS of museum grants are based on the number of feet through the door. If a local museum admission fee is too high for you to access, find out which level of government funds it and write to that representative. (Also see if your museum has days with reduced or free admission or if you can rent a membership from your local library, libraries renting out memberships to museums and galleries is becoming more and more common).

This is a very winding post and idk what I was aiming for but I needed to get it out.

it REALLY annoys me these days when they show those simple, garishly painted versions of old marble statues and claim that the statues looked like that. like yeah, they were painted, we can find bits of color in various locations, so we know very roughly the color of various locations, but i dont think theres any more reason to believe they were painted in these flat (and matte!) colors than in more detail. like yes, we dont know what that detail was, but that doesnt make the flat version *more plausible*, i dont think you should have like, a stronger prior that they were flat than that they were detailed. these were expensive statues!