I saw a post a few nights ago that basically flat-out said that historians (just a vague sweep of the entire field) were actively working to wipe away LGBT+ people from history and to come up with sad, sorry excuses as to why X, Y, Z person couldn’t possibly be LGBT+.
See, I’m the first to criticise some of the more old-school historians who often have loud voices in the field, for their stubborn nature and unwillingness to evolve with the study of history. They might not “actively” be working to keep LGBT+ history as on the down-low as possible (I don’t believe there’s really an agenda here, just ignorance and a touch of the archaic within academia) but they contribute to the pervasive and harmful ideas about the place of LGBT+ people in history. I don’t deny that and I’ve made many a post on it, had many a spar, particularly in regards to bisexuality in history. It’s something I’ll probably come across in my professional life.
But I take great offence to such a sweeping generalisation just because I know how much it isn’t true. I’m a bisexual history graduate. A lot of people on my degree course were LGBT+ and as such, took an active interest in their own history. A lot of people who run stellar history orientated blogs on here are LGBT+. There is no grand conspiracy within the field of history, especially now that the younger generation of historians are pushing through with new perspectives. I can list off a whole plethora of books that have been released in recent years that deal directly with LGBT+ presence in 17th and 18th century European spaces. Historic Royal Palaces (the organisation that takes care of Britain’s main old palace complexes) has started to hold Palace Pride every year for LGBT+ Pride Month. Some of you know I went to one of these Palace Pride events at the Banqueting House of Whitehall Palace a few months ago where LGBT+ identities of the court of King James I were celebrated, as well as other aspects of LGBT+ history of the 17th century (gender roles particularly: there was a “queerlesque” show at the event to reflect this.) There’s a serious push against old habits in the field of history right now. I even took a course in my second year at uni on sexuality and gender circa. 1660-1815 and it was popular with a whole host of different kinds of students/budding historians and the sources available came at me in their droves. Put simply: we. are. doing. the. work.
Frankly, it’s just annoying to see such blatantly wrong negativity aimed at historians and it’s very….idk….“We’re sick of experts”-esque? Like, it’s a little anti-intellectual. It’s obvious that the people levelling these kind of accusations at historians don’t know anything about it, or refuse to put in the work to FIND OUT anything about it. It’s also a slap in the face to all the hardwork I and so many others do. In fact, it’s a double slap in the face to me, as both a young historian and a bisexual woman. It’s important that we have these conversations, these discussions about people’s identities and experiences in the past with as much attention to nuance as possible (whilst also simultaneously not erasing the simple truth that LGBT+ people have always existed) but negative shit like this makes it so much harder.
Published
tora42's nonsensne 