We can all have a good flirt later.

madtomedgar:

jadore-histoire:

john-laurens:

yelyzavetaa:

feistyphocion:

yelyzavetaa:

john-laurens:

Keep reading

the exact same thing happened to me concerning how my quotes were used and i don’t appreciate the light in which the fandom culture was portrayed or how ridiculed i feel after reading that

but what do i know? i’m just another fangirl who draws gay art of the founders because it’s cool and because i’m bi!! 

This lady also just gave a lecture about the Tumblr history fandom at UMass.  I haven’t had a chance to watch this yet.

she starts to talk about the hamilton fandom at 1:04:55 and i cringe at every word

She literally opens the Hamilton fandom discussion by talking about ship names oh my gosh

“Some people believe that John Laurens and Alexander Hamilton actually did have, you know, a kind of friendship or relationship that went beyond simple friendship.  We don’t know that, and I actually think that most historians who write about Laurens would say that’s not necessarily true, but people on tumblr really believe it. (laughs)”

Glad to know what her true feelings about my blog are

Ugh, I’m so sorry :(

Of course we don’t know. But way to mock people on tumblr over a theory we’ve posed! We all know we’ll never find out exactly what Laurens and Hamilton were doing. But there’s evidence that something may have been going on that makes them more than BFF. 

And I know how Massey feels about it, but there ARE scholars who said “Yes, there’s a possibility.” Chernow’s one and I think there’s some LGBT historians who agree as well. I’m not the expert here - @publius-esquire?

I wish people like this would stop shaming fandom for liking things.

yeah but see those scholars are men of a certain age with phds and scruffy facial hair so they must be respected unlike us

very important and legitimate distinction i assure you

I’m still so mad about this. She totally refused to take seriously the way real history is being used in these fandoms right now. There’s a lot of cool stuff going on and apparently she even interviewed people about it, then chose to use her article as an opportunity to reinforce a division between “real” historians, of whom she considers herself one, even though she’s just an online writer and blogger like the rest of us who happens to have a PhD in American Studies– it’s not like her Slate or NYMag pieces have to survive peer review or anything– and “fans”. She has to know that a lot of the bloggers she’s dismissing are majoring in history or are applying knowledge they’ve acquired through fandom channels into college or high school courses on history, that fandom has become a location in the production of knowledge about history, and made the conscious effort to erase it in her story. 

This fantastic piece on the linguistics of doge and emotional language on the internet crossed my dash this morning and it struck me how much more rigorous, honest, and intellectually valuable it is as a piece of journalism than whatever that thing was that she posted yesterday. The UMass talk barely passes muster as an academic lecture because mostly she just pokes fun and giggles at all the “bad” history on the Internet. But I guess that makes her seem like a “better” source of Internet history than her journalist and blogger competitors, which matters when that’s how you earn your living. 

I used to like her work on Slate– she wrote a review of “The Witch” that was exactly what I thought it would be like when I saw the trailer and now I’m excited to see the movie– but after listening to that MIT lecture, no way. Super not happy with her.