seraph-of-the-muses said: This isn't really a question but I felt the urge to send it anyways. I would just like you to know that what you're doing here is good and necessary because history is unfortunately sometimes white-washed. However, much of your technique is biased and intellectually disingenuous. I am a historian with plans to get my PHD in American and European histories. I'm not sure if its on purpose or not that you misinterpret information but, from looking at previous posts, you're doing it to fit an agenda

medievalpoc:

ushistoryminuswhiteguys:

Here is my take on what the problem is. 

 Whatever it may or may not be, this is is a collection of people over time (including myself) have objected to the way in which you approach historiography, interpretation, and Art History. 

You are not an expert. And that’s okay! No one is saying you have to be an academic to run a history blog. However, your lack of expertise becomes apparently when you blatantly make things up, get them wrong (without further research), or disregard things simply for the sake of it. You once told me that feudalism and the middle ages lasted until the industrial revolution. 

Literally anyone could assure you that no, of course the middle ages and feudalism did not last until the 1800’s. It’s absurd. It’s wrong. It’s laughably wrong

Again, recently you commented that something was located in the Cologne Cathedral in….Italy. While there is a Cologne, Italy, the famous Cologne Cathedral is in Germany. 

Your methodology is dubious at best

You apply 21st century racial categories to medieval Europe — and it blatantly doesn’t work. If you didn’t, this blog would be so much better. You consistently fail to understand how and why the racial demographics of say, medieval and renaissance Europe would be WILDLY DIFFERENT than 19th or even 20th century America. 

You conflate history (the study of the past) and historiography (the writing of history.) These are not the same thing. 

You’re using Critical Race Theory — CRT — which was developed to approach AMERICAN understandings of race and history and blatantly do not work in Europe. The category of white in medieval europe is irrelevant — because of course, jews who may have looked white were treated poorly and reviled. 

You seem to think that racial construction purely happens based on whether or not a painting passes the brown paper bag test. (E.g. posting darker southern Europeans with no regards to how their coloring or racial makeup was treated in their society). 

It’s bizarre at best, and completely misunderstanding history at worst. 

Claiming that Sancho and Urraca were…POC? They were born of the visigoth nobility. 

Of course POC existed in Europe. Your blog however, just doesn’t seem to be about that half the time, and it makes you look like you’re running an ahistorical revisionist blog with very little leg to stand on. This isn’t the case. You have quite a bit you could cover! 

You just don’t always do it, and you frequently do it with misinformation, misunderstanding, and poor scholarship — and people believe you

— USHistoryMinusWhiteGuys

You literally just tore me a new one because “the category of white in medieval europe is irrelevant”, then go on to assure me that Urraca and Sancho were “of the visigoth nobility”….so…. “white”, then?

Which is it?

They were definitely white, or their “race” as WE perceive it was irrelevant?

It’s almost as if self-contradiction can happen to the best of us!

Let’s cut the sh*t for a second, shall we? I make mistakes literally all the time. When someone corrects my posts, I publish it. Hell, at a presentation I gave recently, I had someone in the front row googling every word I said, and when I was wrong about something, I said, “oh, I didn’t know that, that’s fine”. It’d be more nerve-wracking if I hadn’t already accepted my own very human capacity for imperfection many, many years ago.

So can we please stop pretending like infallibility is a prerequisite for blogging? Or, I guess, everyone can go read your history blog for the real deal, whatever your perspective on that may be. I think I’ve even recommended it here before, can’t really remember.

As you’ve said above:

You just don’t always do it, and you frequently do it with misinformation, misunderstanding, and poor scholarship — and people believe you.

I cordially invite anyone to believe you instead, or in addition, or whatever it is you’re hoping for here…but it should be painfully obvious by now that I have no control over other people’s beliefs or behavior.

As for history being some kind of completely separate from historiography, and my running of this “ahistorical revisionist” blog, I’ll leave you with a quote from James M. McPherson, President of the American Historical Association:

medievalpoc:

Speaking of agendas….you apparently are so invested in what my response to this will be that you wrote a post about it:

image

You’re practically peeing your pants hoping I’ll…what? Get really angry about your vague handwaving in my general direction without actually saying what exactly you have a beef with?

This is the literal definition of trolling. Rather bad trolling, considering you declared your intentions openly, which were just to get a rise out of me, or someone who saw, this I suppose. You also failed to pick something specific that I did or said that you have a problem with, so there’s really nothing for me to even get defensive about.

I think I’ll just walk a wide circle around this one on my way to “go study history better”, which I rather enjoy, and leave you to whatever “coming storm” you’re anticipating with such Rumpelstiltskin-like glee.

The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship.

History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past.

Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time.

There is no single, eternal, and immutable “truth” about past events and their meaning.

The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, “revisionism”—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers’s The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs “Captains of Industry” or “Robber Barons”?

Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes.

P.S. My condolences to my readers who have been noting my horrendous geography and name related mistakes since day one. I’ve corrected the post I believe was being referred to here.

I never once said you were a revisionist. In fact, your revisionism would be of merit — again, if you actually used appropriate historiographic scholarship for your revisionism. 

You don’t. 

And the fact that you’re implicating additional language which I did not write — POC *and* White did not exist in Urraca’s time — but they would not have been dark, whatever the racial construction of the era. I never said Urraca was White the racial category. I am pointing out you cannot have it both ways

They were visigoth-descended, who married into other visigoths. They would have, in all likelihood, been paler than their own people. My point here being skin color does not equate a racial designation in society, or even treatment based on race

Urraca was a visigoth. The conceptualization of European “white” simply did not exist then. Which way do you want it? If you want to apply 21st century American racial categories, then yes, Urraca was “white” visigoth. If you object to this (which given that you put words in my mouth, I suspect you might), then Urraca was simply a very pale visigoth woman. She wasn’t dark. Is visigoth POC? Or is it white simply because she would have been pale? Visigoths were Germanic in origin. 

You tell me, of course. 

You’ve been told many times — again and again — how and why US-centrism doesn’t work when talking about Europe and you continue to use it. You’ve been corrected on things like the history and perception of Jewish ethnicities within Europe. 

I am not personally attacking you. It has nothing to do with your person, your personal character, your opinions, etc. But I am suggesting you need to rethink how this is being approached, not because we make mistake (I assure you, we all do), but because you make leaps of assumptions that do not hold water and call it “revisionist”. (See also: you assuming I was saying Urraca was white or not a POC when all I said was she was visigoth nobility, and whatever else you think that means, it certainly does not imply that Urraca would have claimed political solidarity with 21st century people of color.) 

This isn’t a personal attack, merely a suggestion you should take people’s advice (Jewish, Sami, pan-European) when you get it wrong about their own histories. That you should (and can) be more discerning between US racial categories and European ones. That you could explore the historical shifts of racialization. 

Stop giving people quotes from other historians, and give us you, and stand by it. Use history that makes sense, for the history it applies to. Talk about being visigoth! Question our concepts of “whiteness” pre-20th century, question it especially in medieval europe!

The US does not have one-size-fits-all racial categories for the world. 

dreamingstarkly said: I find the discussion of methodology a bit puzzling. From what I understand of MedievalPOC's aproach to race in her blog, it comes from a person educated about Europe history in US public schools and wanting to deconstruct US racial perceptions of European history. I relate as someone who lives/learns in US academic environs Obviously racial perceptions in Europe are vastly different, but is it completely unreasonable to critically address US relations to European history with a US-centric lens?

Today’s actually my birthday, so I’m heading out and this will be brief:

MPOC is not actually [consistently] addressing the US relations to European history. If they were, this would not be an issue. In fact, IF mpoc was addressing US relations to European history — they would be spending their time debunking the use of US Crit race theory as it would apply to European history because US-centrism is ahistorical and does not apply to European history

Continuing to use US theories and historiography on US constructions of race on Europe is bad scholarship, plain and simple. If they were trying to educate people about European history who grew up in the US public school system, then they would (should) ideally actually deconstruct historiographic UScentrism and explain how and why it doesn’t apply to European history, and then explain European historiography, theory, and then post about race in Europe. 

I too grew up in the US public school system, went to a US public university, and am a first year PhD student in another US public school. 

I am an art historian, and a historian. The methodology MPOC uses is, plain and simple, not fit for the history they’re discussing, and is often misleading at best and outright wrong at worst. 

I would never use European racial constructions to discuss American racial politics, so why on earth would MPOC use UScentrism to discuss Europe? It’s unreasonable simply because race is a social construct, and thus depends on the social-historical context of the places we’re talking about. 

seraph-of-the-muses said: This isn't really a question but I felt the urge to send it anyways. I would just like you to know that what you're doing here is good and necessary because history is unfortunately sometimes white-washed. However, much of your technique is biased and intellectually disingenuous. I am a historian with plans to get my PHD in American and European histories. I'm not sure if its on purpose or not that you misinterpret information but, from looking at previous posts, you're doing it to fit an agenda

medievalpoc:

Speaking of agendas….you apparently are so invested in what my response to this will be that you wrote a post about it:

image

You’re practically peeing your pants hoping I’ll…what? Get really angry about your vague handwaving in my general direction without actually saying what exactly you have a beef with?

This is the literal definition of trolling. Rather bad trolling, considering you declared your intentions openly, which were just to get a rise out of me, or someone who saw, this I suppose. You also failed to pick something specific that I did or said that you have a problem with, so there’s really nothing for me to even get defensive about.

I think I’ll just walk a wide circle around this one on my way to “go study history better”, which I rather enjoy, and leave you to whatever “coming storm” you’re anticipating with such Rumpelstiltskin-like glee.

Here is my take on what the problem is. 

 Whatever it may or may not be, this is is a collection of people over time (including myself) have objected to the way in which you approach historiography, interpretation, and Art History. 

You are not an expert. And that’s okay! No one is saying you have to be an academic to run a history blog. However, your lack of expertise becomes apparently when you blatantly make things up, get them wrong (without further research), or disregard things simply for the sake of it. You once told me that feudalism and the middle ages lasted until the industrial revolution. 

Literally anyone could assure you that no, of course the middle ages and feudalism did not last until the 1800’s. It’s absurd. It’s wrong. It’s laughably wrong

Again, recently you commented that something was located in the Cologne Cathedral in….Italy. While there is a Cologne, Italy, the famous Cologne Cathedral is in Germany. 

Your methodology is dubious at best

You apply 21st century racial categories to medieval Europe — and it blatantly doesn’t work. If you didn’t, this blog would be so much better. You consistently fail to understand how and why the racial demographics of say, medieval and renaissance Europe would be WILDLY DIFFERENT than 19th or even 20th century America. 

You conflate history (the study of the past) and historiography (the writing of history.) These are not the same thing. 

You’re using Critical Race Theory — CRT — which was developed to approach AMERICAN understandings of race and history and blatantly do not work in Europe. The category of white in medieval europe is irrelevant — because of course, jews who may have looked white were treated poorly and reviled. 

You seem to think that racial construction purely happens based on whether or not a painting passes the brown paper bag test. (E.g. posting darker southern Europeans with no regards to how their coloring or racial makeup was treated in their society). 

It’s bizarre at best, and completely misunderstanding history at worst. 

Claiming that Sancho and Urraca were…POC? They were born of the visigoth nobility. 

Of course POC existed in Europe. Your blog however, just doesn’t seem to be about that half the time, and it makes you look like you’re running an ahistorical revisionist blog with very little leg to stand on. This isn’t the case. You have quite a bit you could cover! 

You just don’t always do it, and you frequently do it with misinformation, misunderstanding, and poor scholarship — and people believe you

— USHistoryMinusWhiteGuys

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent.  Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture states that, “about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico.” The USDA has also warned that, “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.” From the perspective of National Milk Producers Federation in 2009, retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated. 

Echoing the Department of Labor, the USDA, and the National Milk Producers Federation, agricultural labor economist James S. Holt made the following statement to Congress in 2007: “The reality, however, is that if we deported a substantial number of undocumented farm workers, there would be a tremendous labor shortage.”

In terms of overall numbers, The Department of Labor reports that of the 2.5 million farm workers in the U.S., over half (53 percent) are illegal immigrants. Growers and labor unions put this figure at 70 percent

But what about the immense strain on social services and money spent on welfare for these law breakers? The Congressional Budget Office in 2007 answered this question in the following manner: “Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use.”  According to the New York Times, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration claims that undocumented workers have contributed close to 10% ($300 billion) of the Social Security Trust Fund.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/203984-illegal-immigrants-benefit-the-us-economy#ixzz34MDbRpo9 

Statistics & Charts from Pew Hispanic

historicaltimes:

Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Chippewa delegation. Photographed in front of the Smithsonian’s Arts and Industries Building, 21 January 1899
Read More

historicaltimes:

Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Chippewa delegation. Photographed in front of the Smithsonian’s Arts and Industries Building, 21 January 1899

Read More

pogphotoarchives:

Hopi potter (Nampeyo?), Hano Pueblo, Hopi, ArizonaPhotographer: H.F. RobinsonDate: circa 1910-15?Negative Number 021536

pogphotoarchives:

Hopi potter (Nampeyo?), Hano Pueblo, Hopi, Arizona

Photographer: H.F. Robinson
Date: circa 1910-15?
Negative Number 021536

ushistoryminuswhiteguys:

themuseologist:

Hello Everyone! This summer I am working with Dream America and Arizona State University as an intern collecting oral histories of DREAMers, students affected by the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act. We are currently actively looking for DREAM students to interview. If you, or someone you know is a DREAM act student, particularly in SoCal or Arizona, please contact us, or pass this on.

Your story is our nation’s history.

The Dream America project is an effort to collect and exhibit the experiences of those involved in the undocumented immigrant youth movement. We would like to create a digital archive documenting the movement through the words, art, and actions of immigrant students, legislators, and allies. Through this project we hope to shed light on the movement and help set up a foundation for later documentation by the movement itself.

Although we are looking to create a digital archive documenting our interviews, interviewees are in no way obligated to make your interview public. If interviewees wish to remain anonymous, they are more than welcome to use pseudonyms or first-names only. Our first interviews will be conducted through audio recording only.

A coalition made up of ASU Public History, UCLA Center for Labor Research and Education, and the UTEP Institute of Oral History will lead the project, bringing together a team of nationally-recognized oral historians, public humanists, and social activists to focus initially on collecting and archiving the undocumented student movement within the US-Mexico borderlands, from Texas and New Mexico through Arizona and California.

We are currently looking for undocumented students involved in the DREAMer movement in Southern California or in Arizona.

Contact: Dream America

This is my summer internship project, one that I am happy to be working on. Please pass this on to anyone you believe would be able to contribute to DREAM America’s oral history records. 

(Source: themuseologist)

thetypologist:

“I would like to be known as an intelligent woman, a courageous woman, a loving woman, a woman who teaches by being.”  -Maya Angelou

thetypologist:

“I would like to be known as an intelligent woman, a courageous woman, a loving woman, a woman who teaches by being.”  -Maya Angelou

oaklandtribunearchives:

Tule Lake Relocation Center: Recreation

An unidentified couple at a community dance held at the Recreation Hall. The man in the glasses is Arata “Zigsy” Akahoski, 21, of Oakland. Can you identify the dancers?

Below,  Mrs. Y. Yoshihara of Olympia, Washington gets her hair done by Mrs. Mary Takita of Walnut Grove, California.

All photos taken May 26, 1943 by Carl Bigelow of the Oakland Tribune.

themuseologist:

Hello Everyone! This summer I am working with Dream America and Arizona State University as an intern collecting oral histories of DREAMers, students affected by the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act. We are currently actively looking for DREAM students to interview. If you, or someone you know is a DREAM act student, particularly in SoCal or Arizona, please contact us, or pass this on.

Your story is our nation’s history.

The Dream America project is an effort to collect and exhibit the experiences of those involved in the undocumented immigrant youth movement. We would like to create a digital archive documenting the movement through the words, art, and actions of immigrant students, legislators, and allies. Through this project we hope to shed light on the movement and help set up a foundation for later documentation by the movement itself.

Although we are looking to create a digital archive documenting our interviews, interviewees are in no way obligated to make your interview public. If interviewees wish to remain anonymous, they are more than welcome to use pseudonyms or first-names only. Our first interviews will be conducted through audio recording only.

A coalition made up of ASU Public History, UCLA Center for Labor Research and Education, and the UTEP Institute of Oral History will lead the project, bringing together a team of nationally-recognized oral historians, public humanists, and social activists to focus initially on collecting and archiving the undocumented student movement within the US-Mexico borderlands, from Texas and New Mexico through Arizona and California.

We are currently looking for undocumented students involved in the DREAMer movement in Southern California or in Arizona.

Contact: Dream America

This is my summer internship project, one that I am happy to be working on. Please pass this on to anyone you believe would be able to contribute to DREAM America’s oral history records.