[ SECRET POST #3294 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3294 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 072 secrets from Secret Submission Post #471.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

05. http://i.imgur.com/O9cpFd3.png

[(Anonymous)]

I agree. There have always been people who don't swallow status quo bullshit. I believe that historical pieces should strive for realism but people have been, say, marrying between races for a long ass time. Just because people were GENERALLY racist back in the day doesn't mean that EVERYONE was racist back in the day.

[dreemyweird]

Yeah. This is what I find hilarious about the "I want more historically accurate bigotry" sentiment. Those who express it usually know precious little about history.

[(Anonymous)]

Yep some people were always prepared to tell a civilized darkie they were a credit to their race. That is the non-racist person in the time period there.

[(Anonymous)]

But that's the thing - back in the day, their attitudes wouldn't have been considered racist. They would just have been considered normal, because most people really, genuinely did believe that blacks were inferior to whites. It's easy for us to look back at it now and say "Wow, they were really racist back then" but we have to remember that the average person of that time period didn't think there was anything wrong with believing that blacks weren't as smart as whites or whatever - they thought it was fact.

[(Anonymous)]

That is not a happy cat.

[(Anonymous)]

I know, poor cat. Actually, it's getting clean so it's not all bad...

[litalex]

Yeah, poor thing looks completely miserable.

[(Anonymous)]

Cat: This is how Marat was assassinated right?!

[(Anonymous)]

LOL!!!

[(Anonymous)]

Vive la révolu-bloop-bloop-bloop...

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah this. People in the past weren't monolithic in their prejudices or views any more than people are today.

However, I don't think that there are fewer assholes today than in the past, or that people in the past having prejudices that weren't considered prejudices back then are enough to deem someone a asshole. That's sort of ridiculous. A huge number of current-day people who we all think of as really nice and amazing and accepting in 2016 probably have prejudices that will be thought of as unpalatably assholish in 2050. That doesn't mean we're all secretly assholes.

I think a better way of portraying changing prejudicial norms, as a society-wide thing, is to show that in the past people did have a different line in the sand for what was an acceptable/forgivable prejudice when it came to prejudices. Like today, it would be very hard to write a friendship between a person who thought black people were meant to be slaves and someone who didn't, because today the blacks-are-slaves guy could only be a horrendous asshole who viewed the rest of the world as wrong and himself and his tiny group of like-minded people as right. But in the past, when the majority of the white population in the American south thought black people were meant to be slaves, the blacks-are-slaves guy might just be a normal guy who bought into some society-wide cultural conditioning and therefore a friendship between him and an anti-slavery anti-racism guy could work. That kind of thing.

[kallanda_lee]

I sort of agree. It depends on how you write it. I mean, obviously there are settings where people never saw a black person in a certain time period, so it would raise eyebrows to s the least, and there were some settings where homosexuality could get you a prison sentence or worse. But there were many other historical setting where this was not the case, and you never know how people were behind closed doors anyway.

[(Anonymous)]

This is a good secret and I approve.

[(Anonymous)]

Oooh, has some precious tumblrina just realized that their efforts to be socially correct and just will still lead them to be seen as an asshole in the future? I think they have, and are now trying to get their excuses in. Yes, I'm sure you will be seen as one of the chill people with no -ism whatsoever, chill and utterly evenhanded. Pfft.

[(Anonymous)]

agreed

[ketita]

Yeah, just like how if you're writing about the "Middle Ages" then of course every woman must be raped all the time because that's just ~realism~.

[(Anonymous)]

There's a big difference between everyone being a jerk about something and no one being a jerk about it, though. If the prevailing attitude of the era is one thing, it's going to come across as very strange if that attitude never comes up in a work of fiction and everyone is somehow magically accepting of things that weren't considered to be acceptable by the general societal standards of the time.

Would everyone be scandalized by, say, a woman wearing pants in the Victorian era? Probably not. But would a lot of people? Yes.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't disagree, but it a lot depends on context. Sure there were people who didn't share mainstream beliefs in _____, but it's not unreasonable to think that they're in the minority and might not be outspoken about it all the time. It's also not unreasonable to think that well, not everyone a racist bigot, but there were a lot of people who were. It doesn't necessarily mean they're villains about it, though.

They'd be sort of like people on Facebook. You might not notice it and they'd seem okay until the conversation turns to that subject, then surprise! You find out that your dear Aunt Linda who knit you that cute Christmas sweater is voting for Trump, because she thinks building a wall on the Mexican border is a really sensible idea.

[(Anonymous)]

I suspect it's a reaction against the historical fiction (romance mostly) where everyone has strangely progressive attitudes for the time period.

[dahli]

Pic may not be related but I imagined the cat saying it while reading the secret.

[(Anonymous)]

Recently, one of my friends got into an arugment with this one dude, who claimed that it was "illogical" to write gay people in medieval or victorian era settings because since "homophobia" existed back then, it would of made it impossible for any gay people to ever exist ever, and writing them in any time period that wasn't the 2000s made you a bad writer and a pandering sjw. I'm dead serious.

I'm half conviced the people who actually believe this just don't want diversity in their media, so they'll come up with any stupid ridiculous bullshit to justify it lmao.

[tabaqui]

This makes me think of a season three story line on Downton Abbey. One of the characters is gay, and another is making a fuss, involving the police. The Lord of the house says that 'everyone knows anyway', meaning the entire household, and his valet agrees. Then the Lord says that if he 'shouted blue murder' every time someone 'tried to kiss me at Eaton' he'd have been hoarse in a month. He and the valet both think poorly of the young man who is calling the police (and the woman who is urging him to it), and the Lord does eventually step in and make the police think it's all been a mistake and makes the trouble go away.

BUT - despite this, no one is encouraging the gay character to act upon his desires or trying to set him up or anything. They mostly don't discuss it or seem to think about it, and no one treats him differently as far as being capable of doing his job, etc. Very interesting and, to my mind, a good way to present something like that. It's against the law and not 'acceptable', but many people know, have family who is 'that way', and don't make much of a fuss about it.

[(Anonymous)]

I just write happy gay couples in any an all AUs I write, idgaf about "accuracy" when it comes to shitty homophobia ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[(Anonymous)]

pic unrelated but utterly perfect :D