“Ew You’re A Guy And Like The Color Pink Are You Gay?”

Ha ha HA HA HA

So I might have kinda broken my ankle, lol rip me. I might have also have done so by slipping on the top of the stairs of the bus and fell down the stairs and landed sitting on my ankle. Also, I might have walked around on it all day yesterday not knowing it was more than a sprain, with a forensics meet and everything. So yeah, rip me, lol.

I'm amused. My bit of good luck this morning passed and within an hour I slipped on ice and fell on my tailbone and hand and threw up and might have to go to urgent care.

Posting this without context.

This is controversial I know, but as someone who loves learning new things and hates feeling stupid, I always err on the side of simple when I’m teaching people about history, particularly when I’m working with niche equipment or antiquated terms.

When you’re so enmeshed in a subject, it can be all too easy to forget that your knowledge and vocabulary is now different from everyone else’s. I go to a lot of reenactments where the people there are passionate about history, but don’t know how to teach it, or deal with museums where the curator rather than the educational staff writes labels. Far too often I’ve had to step in and explain a concept or word because someone else thought it was obvious so it wasn’t.

Just in the 18th century alone I’ve had explain when people were confused by someone using period appropriate, but confusing words such as:

“Stays” rather than corset

“Chocolate” rather than “hot chocolate”

“Petticoat” rather than “skirt”

“Shrewsbury cake” rather than “cookie”

“But Beggars!” you say, “it’s wrong to use modern terms for things when we know what they were actually called! They’re not the same!” Not if you explain yourself. You and I both know that stays and corsets are differently shaped, but to 99% of the population, it’s a support garment, and that’s what they need to know. I will generally use the appropriate term and then explain using more colloquial language. “I’m wearing stays - what we would today call a corset, although they’re differently shaped.” Making the person guess what you’re talking about is putting more mental strain on them and causing them to lose track of the discussion.

As a professional who still looks like a child, I know how awkward it can be when someone assumes that you have a negative level of knowledge, but I am always going to err on that side and then beef up my interpretation later, rather than starting at a master’s degree level, making someone feel stupid, and then having to backtrack. A good interpreter will be able to glean someone’s general level of knowledge very quickly.

hey guys just wanted to say that while it’s super awesome that y’all wanna support jews this holiday season, it’s not really appropriate to do the bugs bunny “i wish all ______ a very happy ______” meme for yom kippur. it’s great for sukkot, fantastic for simchat torah, but yom kippur is a day for repentance, remembrance, and forgiveness. it’s probably the most serious holiday we’ve got, so please don’t make light of it. instead of “happy yom kippur”, maybe say something like “have a meaningful holiday”, or “have a healthy fast” for people doing the traditional sundown to sundown fast. yom kippur starts with kol nidre (some people go to services, others just eat a big pre-fast meal, my family does both) september 15th at sundown and lasts until sundown on the 16th. please be conscious of your jewish peers! love, your local jewish nonbinary lesbain

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.

Ruth and the Romance of Consent

This year rereading the Book of Ruth I've been making sure to contextualize her within the rest of Tanakh. She's a beautiful little romance in isolation and a pointed moral commentary about sexual accountability in conversation with Genesis. In fact, she's a better romantic text if you deliberately read her in response to Genesis.

Ruth is a descendant of Moab and Boaz is a descendant of Judah. That two people from these specific families meet and marry is no literary/theological accident, since Genesis stans will immediately remember that both bloodlines are born from a sexual crime.

The man Moab for whom the nation is named was conceived by rape-incest, Lot's daughter mounting him when he is drunk. (Genesis 19) While the moral lesson of that sordid episode is complex and murky, the horror is blatant.

Boaz is the great-great-great-grandson of Peretz, who was conceived by Judah sleeping with his disguised daughter-in-law Tamar. (Genesis 38) Judah condemns her as a harlot to be burned, and though he cancels the death penalty once he realizes he is the father, the Biblical author is clear that he has all the power, responsibility, and blame in the situation.

In both cases, a child is born from a man and his daughter figure having sex. Leviticus 19 is explicit that such a relationship is forbidden. (Remember that Biblical law makes an immoral act an illegal one.) Both women acted from desperation in trying to conceive an heir but explanation is not excuse, especially since neither man knowingly consented to the act.

One might think, in a society obsessed with lineage and legitimate inheritance, that Moab and Peretz would be cursed morally and socially for their parents's sin, that their children's children would still bear the shame. But the Book of Ruth upends that expectation by having their descendents act with such morality that they merit the kingdom and the future Messianic dynasty.

When Boaz marries Ruth, he is technically fulfilling an esoteric Biblical inheritance law called yibum, honoring his dead relative Mahlon by marrying his childless widow so that Mahlon will have an heir. All very formal and proper, except that absolutely none of their contemporaries should have expected them to bother! Ruth isn't Jewish, so why should she care about property she's not allowed to access? (Marrying a Moabite woman was also illegal.) Naomi is explicit about releasing Ruth from any obligation she might feel. And Boaz is a wealthy, established community leader who's not even a close relative, so why would he marry Mahlon's goyische ex? The sexual ethics laws don't apply here, no one would notice if they just fucked.

Ruth and Boaz's meet-cute, therefore, is neither just a love story (against all odds!!) nor just a creative case study on how to apply weird property laws. When Ruth slips into Boaz's bed in the middle of the night, the Biblical audience can reasonably expect another murky sexcapade, like in Genesis. Nothing new under the sun, right? Just another desperate woman taking advantage of an oblivious powerful man to secure her survival.

INSTEAD, we get a compassionate, gentle scene where the couple not only does not sleep together, Boaz promises to marry her. In the dark, on the floor, in the middle of the harvest season, two kindred spirits open their hearts and hopes and trust each other to honor their promises the morning after. Your faves could never.

In Jewish tradition, we usually classify yibum as redemption, ie Boaz redeeming Mahlon's property and inheritance. But before the property redemption in front of the court, there was a moral redemption, made in private with no witnesses but the sacks of grain and the LORD.

Ruth and Boaz remind us that consent and dignity are always beautiful and romantic. We respect our sexual partners because it is right, not in expectation of reward or applause. And when we do, we can blot out the memory of any ancestral crimes. The generational trauma is ended, and love & trust will merit the World To Come.

Happy Shavuot!

Being weird together in museums is a love language

Tombstones of Ancient Roman Dogs

Aeolidis tumulum festivae cerne catellae, quam dolui inmodice raptam mihi praepete fato.

Behold the tomb of Aeolis, the cheerful little dog, whose loss to fleeting fate pained me beyond measure.

Raeda[r]um custos numquam latravit inepte. nunc silet et cineres vindicat um- bra suos.

This guard of the coaches never barked unsuitably. Now he is silent and his shade protects his ashes.

Quam dulcis fuit ista quam benigna quae cum viveret in sinu iacebat somni conscia semper et cubilis o factum male Myia quod peristi latrares modo si quis adcubaret rivalis dominae licentiosa o factum male Myia quod peristi altum iam tenet insciam sepulcrum nec sevire potes nec insilire nec blandis mihi morsib(us) renides.

How sweet and friendly she was! While she was alive she used to lie in the lap, always sharing sleep and bed. What a shame, Midge, that you have died! You would only bark if some rival took the liberty of lying up against your mistress. What a shame, Midge, that you have died! The depths of the grave now hold you and you know nothing about it. You cannot go wild nor jump on me, and you do not bare your teeth at me with bites that do not hurt.

Portavi lacrimis madidus te nostra catella, quod feci lustris laetior ante tribus. ergo mihi, Patrice, iam non dabis osculla mille nec poteris collo grata cubare meo. tristis marmorea posui te sede merentem et iunxi semper manib(us) ipse meis, morib(us) argutis hominem simulare paratam; perdidimus quales, hei mihi, delicias. tu dulcis, Patrice, nostras attingere mensas consueras, gremio poscere blanda cibos, lambere tu calicem lingua rapiente solebas quem tibi saepe meae sustinuere manus, accipere et lassum cauda gaudente frequenter

Bedewed with tears I have carried you, our little dog, as in happier circumstances I did fifteen years ago. So now, Patrice, you will no longer give me a thousand kisses, nor will you be able to lie affectionately round my neck. You were a good dog, and in sorrow I have placed you in a marble tomb, and I have united you forever to myself when I die. You readily matched a human with your clever ways; alas, what a pet we have lost! You, sweet Patrice, were in the habit of joining us at table and fawningly asking for food in our lap, you were accustomed to lick with your greedy tongue the cup which my hands often held for you and regularly to welcome your tired master with wagging tail.

Source: Electronic Archive of Greek and Latin Epigraphy

Poland and Italy's Friendship Explains A Thing

PIEROGI PIZZA! GREAT PIZZA! CHEESY POTATO AND ONION ON CRUST! My area is so German and Polish we have to put potatoes even our Italian food. Like, we have pierogies at every festival and kielbasa is served in school, also haluski, but all three can be found in both places, and they haven't had sauerkraut in either but you can find it at bake sales (???? Why? ?? Everything will taste like sauerkraut???) and everyone over fifty has their preferred way of making it. Basically, my area is vvv German and Polish and pierogi pizza is great. Haven't had any in ages, but it's great.