Me: I'll sleep early tonight and get a good 8 hours
Me: *watches entire season of tv show*
Me: *reads every book i own*
Me: *goes on quest to find the holy grail*
I’m not a big fan of adjectives, but it’s food for thought.
Today on medievalpoc we brainstormed historically accurate Asian women as Robin Hood in Medieval England, with possible Trotula the Medieval gynecologist as a Merry Woman, touched on 30 ways to become An Immortal from a non-Western perspective (including eating mermaid meat!), revisited the accurately diverse demographics of the Caribbean and possibilities thereof (including LGBT pirates), saw some average peasants of color from the Renaissance doing their peasant thing, learned about the legendary beauty of an enslaved man named Paul in Pre-Revolutionary France, attempted to clarify the sociopolitical nuances of terminology, religion and race in 16th century Spain and Portugal, and called out Gilgamesh for being a raging tryhard.
^ In one day. Which is kinda the point here-and why I can be pretty critical of how we see the same things over and over and over in Medieval style fantasy media.
No writer or creator is limited by history or “historical accuracy”.
Anything you can possibly imagine has a historical precedent.
I find that prospect absolutely thrilling, and I hope you do, too.
I want to reblog this again for Fiction Week, because I think many artists, writers, and other creators limit themselves because of assumptions they hold about the past, what is “believable”, what is “true”, what is “historically accurate”.
Too much of what we think we know boils down to assumptions we’ve made, or things we have been told by others and believed, internalized, and replicated through our art. Or ideals and aesthetics are shaped by our culture, but we are also the shapers of culture, and we can break the loop.
I really do believe the possibilities are limitless.
By challenging the idea of one person as the learner and another as the teacher, you start breaking down a lot of ingrained ideas about hierarchies of knowledge, and who belongs where on that hierarchy. Realizing that everyone, no matter their age, has things to both learn and share strengthens individual and community bonds, as well as opening up access to a whole lot of knowledge and skills you wouldn’t really have access to if you were only looking at professional teachers. Unschooling parents aren’t seeking to become teachers, but to learn alongside their children, to both impart knowledge and gain it themselves.
Everyone who is claiming that there just isn’t a high enough demographic of LGBT viewers to demand representation just needs to stop. What is the magical percentage that warrants a person be included just like all people have the right to be? In the United States the percentage of Pacific Islanders is less than one half of a percent, but they were still included as characters in shows like Lilo and Stitch and Rocket Power. I don’t remember anyone crying havoc over that.
People seem to frequently make the mistake of thinking that because something is meaningful and helpful in their own lives, then it must be meaningful and helpful in everyone’s lives. Which means everyone should do X, Y, or Z important thing as a Right of Passage or a Way to Find Yourself.
Sharing what’s worked in your own life can be really helpful and inspiring to others. But don’t make the assumption that just because it worked for you, it’s going to work for most (or even many) other people. We’re all individuals with different paths to pursue.
It’s messing people up, this social pressure to “find your passion” and “know what it is you want to do”. It’s perfectly fine to just live your moments fully, and marvel as many small and large passions, many small and large purposes enter and leave your life. For many people there is no realization, no bliss to follow, no discovery of your life’s purpose. This isn’t sad, it’s just the way things are. Stop trying to find the forest and just enjoy the trees.
A library is a place where you learn what teachers were afraid to teach you.
Begin with the term minority group. Taken literally, the mathematical connotation of this term is misleading because it implies that minority groups are small. In reality, a minority group can be quite large an can even be a numerical majority of the population. Women, for example, are sometimes considered to be a separate minority group, but they are a numerical majority of U.S. citizens. In South Africa, as in many nations created by European colonization, whites are a numerical minority (less than 10% of the population), but despite recent changes, they remain the most powerful and affluent group.
Minority status has more to do with the distribution of resources and power than with simple numbers.
[M]any nations of the third world are described as ‘underdeveloped’. These less wealthy nations are generally those that suffered under colonialism and neo-colonialism. The ‘developed’ nations are those that exploited their resources and wealth. Therefore, rather than referring to these countries as ‘underdeveloped’, a more appropriate and meaningful designation might be ‘over exploited’. Again, transpose this term next time you read about the ‘underdeveloped nations’ and note the different meaning that results.