alliecat-person said: I just found your blog and as a fellow PhD student in U.S. history, I really appreciate what you're doing here. There's no reason why historical discussions on Tumblr couldn't be well-informed, but they're generally just not. Thanks for putting this out there and showing people that you can be a methodologically rigorous historian without fetishizing dead white men.

It’s all about skipping over the DWG’s! 

lodubimvloyaar said: Wait, hold on. There was a suggestion that Urraca might be Muslim?

That seems to be the implication here, yes. 

MPOC posts manuscript illustrations of:

The Kings of León and Castile 850s-1157, including of course, Urraca. 

Someone replies: 

Are you saying that this Kings/Queen weren’t white?

This is why people shouldn’t trust tumblr.

MPOC replies: 

How do I history?

What are facts?

We just

don’t

know

All of which link to things that discuss the conquests of Hispania and the muslims of Spain. Which - again, given that Urraca helped lead the Reconquista, and was exceedingly Catholic, seems a bit odd. 

youcantbesopornasme replies: 

Thank you, but I don’t need wikipedia. I actually know about my country’s history.

But maybe you should read this
http://www.monarquiaespanola.es/

That link, of course, details out the family lineage of the Royals in Spain/Hispania, including Urraca. 

Their response?

    1. Uh huh…..some of these leaders are illustrated above. Not really surewhat about that link proves anything about race…

      I linked to more than Wikipedia (although they’re well-cited, including a bibliography).

      The last three links:

      Muslim Spain: 711-1492 A.D. : a Sociological Study By S. M. Imamuddin (p. 24-25):

      Islamic And Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages By Thomas F. Glick(p. 192):

      The Legacy of Muslim Spain edited by Salma Khadra Jayyusi, Manuela Marín (p.51, 232):

      ….

      The bibliography for the page on Al-Andalus:

      • Alfonso, Esperanza, 2007. Islamic culture through Jewish eyes: al-Andalus from the tenth to twelfth century. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-43732-5
      • Al-Djazairi, S.E. 2005. The Hidden Debt to Islamic Civilisation. Bayt Al-Hikma Press. ISBN 0-9551156-1-2
      • Bossong, Georg. 2002. Der Name Al-Andalus: Neue Überlegungen zu einem alten Problem. In David Restle and Dietmar Zaefferer, eds, Sounds and systems: studies in structure and change. A festschrift for Theo Vennemann. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 149–164. (In German) Also available online: see External Links below.
      • Cohen, Mark. 1995. Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01082-X
      • Collins, Roger. 1989. The Arab Conquest of Spain, 710–797, Blackwell.ISBN 0-631-19405-3
      • Dodds, Jerrilynn D. (1992). Al-Andalus: the art of Islamic Spain. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. ISBN 9780870996368.
      • Frank, Daniel H. and Leaman, Oliver. 2003. The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-65574-9
      • Gerli, E. Michael, ed., 2003. Medieval Iberia: an encyclopedia. New York.ISBN 0-415-93918-6
      • Halm, Heinz. 1989. Al-Andalus und Gothica Sors. Der Islam 66:252–263.
      • Hamilton, Michelle M., Sarah J. Portnoy, and David A. Wacks, eds. 2004.Wine, Women, and Song: Hebrew and Arabic Literature in Medieval Iberia. Newark, Del.: Juan de la Cuesta Hispanic Monographs.
      • Harzig, Christiane, Hoerder, Dirk and Shubert, Adrian. 2003. The Historical Practice in Diversity. Berghahn Books. ISBN 1-57181-377-2
      • Jayyusi, Salma Khadra, ed. 1994. The legacy of Muslim Spain. 2 vol. Chief consultant to the editor, Manuela Marín. Leiden: Brill. [Originally published 1992 in German.]
      • Kennedy, Hugh. 1996. Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of al-Andalus, Longman. ISBN 0-582-49515-6
      • Kraemer, Joel. 1997. Comparing Crescent and Cross (book review). The Journal of Religion, 1997 July, 77(3):449–454.
      • Kraemer, Joel. 2005. Moses Maimonides: An Intellectual Portrait. In Kenneth Seeskin, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-81974-1
      • Kraemer, Joel. 2008. Maimonides : the life and world of one of civilization’s greatest minds. New York: Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-51199-X
      • Lafuente y Alcántara, Emilio, translator. 1867. Ajbar Machmua (colección de tradiciones): crónica anónima del siglo XI / dada a luz por primera vez, traducida y anotada por Emilio Lafuente y Alcántara. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia y Geografía. In Spanish and Arabic. Also available in the public domain online, see External Links.
      • Luscombe, David et al., eds. 2004. The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 4, c. 1024 – c. 1198, Part 1. Cambridge University Press.ISBN 0-521-41411-3
      • Marcus, Ivan G.,1985. Beyond the Sepahrdic mystique. in Orim, vol. 1, 35-53.
      • Marín, Manuela et al., eds. 1998. The Formation of Al-Andalus: History and Society. Ashgate. ISBN 0-86078-708-7
      • Menocal, Maria Rosa. 2002. Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain. Back Bay Books. ISBN 0-316-16871-8
      • Monroe, James T. 1970. Islam and the Arabs in Spanish scholarship : (Sixteenth century to the present). Leiden.
      • Monroe, James T. 1974. Hispano-Arabic Poetry: A Student Anthology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
      • Netanyahu, Benzion. 1995. The Origins Of The Inquisition In Fifteenth Century Spain. Random House ISBN 0-679-41065-1
      • O’Callaghan, Joseph F. 1975. A History of Medieval Spain. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-9264-5
      • Omaar, Rageh. 2005. An Islamic History of Europe. video documentary,BBC 4, August 2005.
      • Reilly, Bernard F. 1993. The Medieval Spains. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-39741-3
      • Roth, Norman. 1994. Jews, Visigoths and Muslims in Medieval Spain: Cooperation and Conflict. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 90-04-06131-2
      • Sanchez-Albornoz, Claudio. 1974. El Islam de España y el Occidente. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Colección Austral; 1560. [Originally published in 1965 in the conference proceedings, L’occidente e l’islam nell’alto medioevo: 2-8 aprile 1964, 2 vols. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Series: Settimane di studio del Centro Italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo; 12. Vol. 1:149–308.]
      • Schorsch, Ismar, 1989. The myth of Sephardic supremacy, in The Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 34, 47-66
      • Stavans, Ilan. 2003. The Scroll and the Cross: 1,000 Years of Jewish-Hispanic Literature. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-92930-X
      • Wasserstein, David J. 1995. Jewish élites in Al-Andalus. In Daniel Frank (Ed.). The Jews of Medieval Islam: Community, Society and Identity. Brill.ISBN 90-04-10404-6

      External links for further reference if desired:

      (via youcantbesopornasme)

      —- Which, incidentally, also doesn’t prove a whole lot about who Urraca was, what her race would have been, how it would have been constructed then, OR now, or really anything related to Urraca at all. 

      Funny how that worked, right? Urraca, of course was a descendant of the Visigothic aristocracy. So — not Al-Andalus, not North African, not Arabic, not Muslim. Maybe dark! Entirely possible, although it’s worth noting the image in question was created after her death.

Anonymous said: for the benefit of those of us who lack a PHD in history, could you explain what is meant by "ahistorical"? one of the reasons I like medievalPOC so much is that they always try to "translate" things into a kind of language that people can understand even if they couldn't afford a degree/have learning disabilities/ESOL. and it's really hard to even understand your side of the argument because of that. or should history be kept only to people with the power and resources to get degrees?

No worries — I described something similar awhile back! I don’t actually have a PhD in history yet. But I’m going to be studying for one in art history. (I’m first gen, worked two jobs during school, have a load of debt, and completely understand how hard it is to gain traction.)

Ahistorical just means - not true to history, lacking the history’s context, or “perspective”. Historians often try to understand how things happened in the kind of world they happened in. For example, the world before the internet was really different than after the internet became widespread and used by most people. 

So we might write about the average person’s experience differently before and after the boom of internet use by the average person. Certain things would be different: like how people found information, or communicated with friends, or even how language changes to “chatspeak”. 

Another example: In the 19th century, when the US received a high influx of immigrants from Europe, many of whom were Eastern European, or non Anglo-Saxon — quite a few of those people were explicitly told they were not white. This is why you have things like the persecution of Jews, Italians, Slavs, Irish, etc in the 19th century. Today, we (Americans) do not distinguish all of these groups as not-white in our laws, hiring practices, and so on. An Irish man in the 1800’s would be treated completely differently than someone Irish today. 

In fact, much of “western” racial ideas in the 19th century had to do with phrenology - a fancy word meaning what your skull looked like. A fake “science” which told people what a civilized head looked like. “Caucasian” came out on top. 

Race was often determined like this!: 

[Wiki: Scientific Racism]

Concepts of race are often time and place specific. 

Here are earlier questions I wrote out: 

  • Can I apply modern terms to non-modern societies in history? (Something specific to here and now applied to something specific to the past, or a different place.)
  • Are these terms accurate if they are based on modern ideas? (Is there a better term for what I mean? Can I use both words to describe the difference between then and now?)
  • If they are not accurate to the ideas of the time then what terms would be? What were the concepts of terminology like in that moment in history at that specific place?

Anonymous said: It's becoming apparent that your current academic bubble is distracting you from critical thinking and analysis. You're a PhD student - you can connect ideas to different contexts.

This actually says nothing — what are you getting at? 

barbotrobot said: "The US does not have one-size-fits-all racial categories for the world." Nor for all of history. Which, again, seems to be the entire point - medievalpoc uses images of people who might be characterized as people of color today to dismantle modern US ideas of what race means and has meant throughout history. I don't know much about visigoths, but remember that in part this blog was started to refute claims of "historical accuracy" in media as a defense of all white casts.

The visigoths were a branch of nomadic Germanic peoples — part of the Goths. They took over Hispania — Spain and Portugal (essentially, to really condense things).

To make brief: I actually know a fellow scholar who studies Queen Urraca and knows more than I could ever forget about the subject. The marriages of Urraca were political in nature, and helped unify the parts of Spain which were not Islamic (Arabic) or North African. The unifications helped the reconquista (or Reconquering of Hispania from Muslim and North African peoples) a sort of campaign to rid the country of them. 

I am very outspoken against all white casts in the name of historical accuracy — because it’s simply not true. But don’t you find focusing on this would be far more interesting in the context that it existed in? (The fractured kingdoms of Visigoth descendants in Hispania, the Muslim caliphates in Spain, the North African presence….? Rather than trying to claim Queen Urraca was Muslim/Arabic, or North African….why not explain what she really was? 

Queen Urraca was part of the Jiménez dynasty. Her family helped lead the reconquista as the “native ruling dynasty”. She was extremely Christian. 

 

Text: As all Spanish medievalists are aware, the one hundred twenty years spanning the reigns of Fernando I (1037-1065), Alfonso VI (1065-1109), Urraca (1109-1126), and Alfonso VII (1126-1157) in Leon-Castilla have been neglected. No one of the four has inspired a biography. With the exception of the incomplete work of Peter Rassow the documents of none have been critically examined and edited. Yet in this period Leon-Castilla was inconstestably the greatest Christian kingdom in the peninsula and leader of the Reconquista. From this context an independent Portugal was born, the kingdom of Aragon consolidated, and an additional quarter of the peninsula’s land mass reclaimed from Islam. 

Read here: http://libro.uca.edu/urraca/urraca.htm

To claim Urraca was perhaps muslim is absurd — especially since she and her predecessors spent quite a bit of time trying to wipe them out

Anonymous said: But modern race relations is why so much of art history is being erased and taught incorrectly.. like paintings being cropped and or having the contrast toyed with to eliminate darker skin tone subjects. Mpoc is pointing out the problem not creating it.

I think there’s room for a lot of valid differentiation between “pointing out the erasure” as in paintings which have been cropped, and “displaying dark europeans  and suggesting this automatically means POC” 

jean-luc-gohard said: I think the purpose of the way MPOC contextualizes things racially is necessary to the discussion being had. If it was a pure art history blog, it would be a bad lens to view it through, but the point is to debunk the idea prevalent in American culture that there were no people that Americans would consider minorities in this day and age around in Europe in the middle ages, or that black and brown people were slaves until 1865. It's not saying those classifications applied when the art was made.

"It’s not saying those classifications applied when the art was made."

The very fact that they post people of ambiguously brown coloring (i.e. darker Europeans) and then have a blog called MPOC actually indirectly implies that yes, those classifications apply here. 

That is rather what I have issue with. Those classifications don’t apply, and instead of exploring the ones that do, they simply let them stand on their own, and people will assume what they will. That’s not really education, so much as allowing people to make assumptions. 

seraph-of-the-muses-deactivated 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-deactivated 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