The idea that we should treat sexual orientation itself as an adults-only topic, however, is absurd. Non-heterosexual children exist. To pretend they do not, to fail to recognize that they have needs for support and validation like any child, would be bad teaching, bad writing, and bad citizenship.

Rick Riordan, from his FAQ on his website. (via owldee)

cephiedvariable:

desidere:

MedievalPOC is scamming you, here’s how and why: 
For all that MedievalPOC railed against how “awful” periodization in this reblog, what they mostly did was prove they have ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT PERIODIZATION IS OR HOW IT WORKS. Which is okay! Not everyone does. But if you’re a history blog, trying to pass off Italian Baroque Art from the 1670’s as from the Georgian period is flat out wrong on every humanly possible level. How do I know it’s not Georgian, but Italian Baroque? Well, MPOC actually directly linked folks back to the original works and then bet NO ONE would check their facts. Talk about incriminating receipts, right? It’s a mistake anyone could make….except this is a history blog, and it’s not an easy mistake to make when you’re in the wrong CENTURY. The last photo is my accurate to period examples that i found quickly.  Periodization, by the way:  an act or instance of dividing a subject into historical eras for purposes of analysis and study. Periods are “named blocks of time” that can be geographically specific. They are often named for major historical events, famous people, or dates. Periods are useful for analyzing change, continuity, or advances over time. Examples: Meiji Japan, the Renaissance, the gilded age, the long 19th century, the 60’s.  
So MPOC hates historiography because its fluid/changing, different from art history in many ways, and not always precise — and therefore wrong. Then proceeds to prove their point by suggesting that the United States experienced the Victorian Era. Which, granted, the US did experience a multitude of influences from the “victorian era” but….it’s also no longer a part of the British empire in the 19th century. 
MPOC is asking people to pay them…..to break the law and/or do things that you can literally do yourself, for free or are already available for a price. IE: selling art prints of POC in art owned by different resources (museums, galleries, private owners, etc) is actually really illegal and against copyright. It’s technically illegal to put these images online without permissions anyways, but you don’t make a profit off of selling the art that isn’t owned by you when you do it. Interested in prints? Well you can either print off the image yourself for free,  or buy them from the actual museums and galleries themselves, furthering the support of the actual items! When you buy prints or postcards of art DIRECTLY from museums, you are funding museums. the money they get from giftshops is actually VERY IMPORTANT because museums and databases like the ones MPOC use are NON-PROFIT organizations AND this money will go to funding the museum, be that for outreach to children, conserving the art, paying their staff, publishing free educational materials, etc. It is an absolutely vital source of income for museums that serve their communities and want to keep their art accessible. There are a few collections which are free for reproduction commercially, like the National Gallery of Art but this isn’t the norm across the board. Besides that? Well I realize buying a $95 art book may be out of the range for some people’s pockets (TRUST ME: having been someone required to buy a lot of these textbooks which are pricey because of the vast amount of copyright fees paid to publish them), there are cheaper or used similar books on amazon AND several museums and universities have published some of their older books online for FREE. Which includes The Met. Why are you going to pay someone else to read books for you when they don’t even give you the facts right?? 
they want $1,200 a month to make lesson plans and curricula about art and art history but can’t even differentiate between two separate countries in two different time periods. This isn’t “one mistake” I found. This is systematically getting things wrong, including the time they claimed that Queen Urraca of Spain might possibly be Muslim — despite the fact that Queen Urraca of Spain spent her career helping and advocating the Reconquista - AKA the murder of muslim people in Spain. Uhhhh…Which of course: These lesson plans? Stuff like this already exists! By (surprise) Museum educators whose JOB it is full time to make this stuff. It’s almost like this stuff is ALREADY free online [The Met, The Getty, Asian Art Museum… pretty much any major museum on the planet….] AND THIS STUFF IS AVAILABLE AND READY TO BE USED. A LOT OF IT IS FREE. How do I know this magical stuff??? because (and I’m guessing here) UNLIKE MPOC I have actually taken a class on museum education. 
MPOC is offering to write a book. a really real published book. SPOILER ALERT: in the art history world, you GENERALLY have a PhD before you publish a book. Why? Because the PhD certifies you as an expert in the thing you study and it is an academic topic. No university/academic publisher alive would risk this. Is it maybe an ivory tower elitist thing? hell yeah it is. Would any editor in their right mind publish a book as riddled with basic factual errors as much as the MPOC blog? Hell no they would not. What about those publishers who publish psuedo-historical books like “PS ‘everything was made by aliens’” ? Well unless they want their asses sued to hell and back over copyrights, they probably won’t be able to foot the necessary bills for these images. Independent publishing doesn’t make any of it LESS illegal. They want to cover the license costs with crowd funding???  GREAT EXCEPT: According to Linda Downs, executive director of the College Art Association, image permissions and licensing costs for a 200-page art-history book average $7,000 to $10,000. Authors usually have to cover those costs themselves. Scholars in disciplines that aren’t so visual might jump at the chance to publish in both print and online formats, Ms. Downs told me in an e-mail. But “art historians will choose one or the other” because they might get hit with two sets of permissions fees and other restrictions. Good luck with that. In order to recoup those kinds of costs the books will NOT be cheap. 
MPOC has been called out by several NDN bloggers regarding the fact that they have been caught lying about their Native/POC heritage. Although the days of stupid_free and fandom_wank have long past, now we have other ways to collect receipts and here AND ALSO HERE REALLY IMPORTANT and know that they are white, white, white — and lied about who they were. Like here’s a hint there are NO Lakota reservations in AZ. If you really miss livejournal, however, you can see the call out on SF_DRAMA. The internet will never forget a white girl co-opting POC to garner cash.
they also have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of how to treat  jewish people in europe in history. which is called out here better than I ever can or could because I am not jewish. they also fumble with the Roma (which they claim to be) and that + the judaism issue is also called out here. 
don’t send this person harassment but don’t give them money holy shit y’all you are being scammed. SCAMMED. do not PAY people to feed you half-assed poor researched bullshit that is available free online. 
- a poc who is tired of the “best diversity in history” blog being wrong about pretty much everything 

What drives me nuts about MPOC is not just the fact that they present themselves as an authority on a subject that they have no learned expertise in. It’s that they present themselves as an authority not DESPITE having no expertise (which tbh I wouldn’t mind that much b/c at least it’s honest), but BECAUSE they have no expertise. They are part of a general trend on tumblr that asserts there is nothing valuable to be learned within the realm of post-secondary education, and the further outside traditional academics an individual is, the more trustworthy a source that individual becomes and the less their methods and words are questioned. It’s a form of reactionary anti-intellectualism and it’s also incredibly dishonest:

… self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals although pseudo-intellectualism is a more commonly… used description for this phenomenon.
In public discourse, anti-intellectuals are usually perceived and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk—populists against political elitism and academic elitism—proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education. [1] 

The reason it’s dishonest is because even though MPOC’s modus operandi is noble and a worthy pursuit of historical study, the blog is run with the attitude that it is a solitary example of progressivescholarship in a sea of rigid, racist academics who obviously don’t examine or re-asses their methodology. Because it’s not like there is an ENTIRE FIELD OF STUDY DEDICATED TO DOING JUST THAT.  MPOC likes to position themselves as an anti-establishment contrarian who is overturning dominant western myths that would NEVER EVER get questioned or discussed within the realms of actual academia. Just look at this shit they said recently when questioned about the veracity of wikipedia (emphasis mine):

"… the farther back you go, the fewer objects and documents that survive, so it becomes more open to individual interpretation.
And one of the problems there is that you get to a point where there are these interpretations that are considered beyond questioning or revising. It’s like, somewhere between “wicked rude” and “you’ll never get funding if you keep on like that”. As if revisiting primary sources is desecrating sacred ground; as if just kind of bypassing Mr. I Wrote The Book on It 300 Years Ago is equivalent to summoning the Elder Gods to consume civilization as we know it.
Which is why I do get messages from historians and “historians” like, “your methods are disgusting and unacceptable!!!” because yes, yes, I’m breaking the rules; yes, yes, I’m Doing It Wrong. I am a Bad Historian. I think this fails to take into account that I’ll go ahead and cite [that book]… but then I’ll have the brazen gall to disagree on the interpretation of that evidence.” [2]

They paint the academic study of history as inherently retrograde and incapable of self-reflection or change. In the atmosphere of debate MPOC creates, a “real historian” - the kind that frequently questions the methodology of MPOC - would NEVER have the “brazen gall” to question “Mr. I Wrote the Book 300 Years Ago” because the dominant western historical narrative is apparently sacrosanct. This is completely inaccurate, which MPOC would know if they had ever taken a single fucking history class in their entire lives, or even if they, you know, read the WIKIPEDIA PAGES for basic fucking things like the Annales School, E.H. Carr’s ‘What is History?’, Postcolonialism or Historical Revisionism. Hey, while we’re here, let’s check out the definition of that last one!!!!:

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.

Let’s repeat and emphasize that last sentence "CONSTANT REVISION OF HISTORY IS PART OF THE !!!NORMAL!!! SCHOLARLY PROCESS OF WRITING HISTORY”. Wow, it’s almost like MPOC’s insistence that academic historians “don’t question” secondary sources that “have been around long enough” is a completely bullshit statement designed to make their naive readers skeptical and distrustful of rigorous scholarship in order to give false authority to their own statements.
They don’t even explain coherently WHY they hate certain types of methodology and historiography, they simply react against them because if it’s part of the establishment it must be wrong and if the establishment is wrong, that means MPOC is the authority on the subject and if you question them, it’s because you’re narrow-minded. They spend a lot of time furiously debunking various forms of methodology and categorization as “irrelevant” seemingly because they’ve been called out on not understanding the basic tenants (ie; their tireless crusade against periodization based entirely on a strawman of what they think periodization is and the fact that they’ve been questioned multiple times about their inaccurate application of historical periods).
I’m not saying that it’s impossible to be a fantastic amateur historian. I’m not making an argument that only people who have been formally and academically trained in a subject are allowed to talk about it. I’m saying that MPOC deliberately misrepresents what formal academic history is so that it’s easy for them to dismiss criticism of their own methodology. I actually think they have the potential to be a p. decent history blog if just they would stop trying to position themselves as some sort of iconoclastic history Robin Hood.

Objectivity is a myth. We don’t suddenly stop being human when we start thinking about something! The problem is that there is a lack of openness, a lack of discussion, and a massive amount if bias that only goes one way. There is only one narrative, and no counternarrative. [3]

Provably untrue. There is no want for discussion and counter-narrative in academic historiography.
I agree that objectivity is a largely a myth, but MPOC does a dishonest double-whammy by insisting that because objectivity is objectively impossible, it’s pointless (and implicitly bigoted) to strive for it. They also use the “objectivity is a myth” defense to create a paradigm in which they can admit their bias while still positioning their scholarship as intrinsically more “truthy” than the “real historians” who criticize them because their bias is noble and progressive.

I’ve said time after time after TIME, THIS IS THE STUFF YOU DON’T. LEARN. IN. CLASSES. IF YOU WANT THE STUFF YOU LEARN IN CLASS, GO TO CLASS. AREN’T YOU LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND GET YOUR APPROVED TRUTHS IN THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENT. [4]

How many times do people who actually went to university for history have to tell MPOC that a lot of this stuff is commonly taught in their programs and, furthermore, most of it is historiography 101. Hell, I went to a tiny, local university not particularly known for it’s history department and my ‘Western Civilization 1000’ course was about the interconnected histories of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. We spent as long studying Ethiopia as we did the rise of Islam and the Reformation. Our textbooks were very common, widely taught academic readers used throughout North America and English-speaking Europe so it’s not like it was some kind of intentionally revisionist course or w/e.

Do any of you have any idea how amazing the concept of “we have created entirely new questions regarding ancient history/historiography” is????
We have proved that this level of discourse can be made accessible, and I’m pretty sure we all just leveled up. [5]

The discussion on MPOC is TOTALLY REVOLUTIONARY SCHOLARSHIP that would otherwise NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO LAYPEOPLE!!! AMAZING!!!! They are asking questions that have NEVER BEEN ASKED!!!!
MPOC claims from one side of their mouth that they don’t intend for their readers to take them as an authority and they welcome well-thought out criticism [6] while from the other side they insist that they are a source of information and perspective that is otherwise unrepresented in the academic world.
The blog is scholarship by a person who insists that traditional methodology is unimportant. MPOC also emphasizes the myth of “inaccessible” academia, adding to an atmosphere that discourages people from engaging with critical scholarship because it’s “elitist” and only for “rich white kids” despite the increasing efforts on the part of scholars from minority or oppressed groups to make scholarly readings available and inclusive.
LIKE THE ONES OP LINKED IN THEIR POST. GO CHECK THOSE OUT IF YOU’RE INTERESTED.
Zoom Info
cephiedvariable:

desidere:

MedievalPOC is scamming you, here’s how and why: 
For all that MedievalPOC railed against how “awful” periodization in this reblog, what they mostly did was prove they have ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT PERIODIZATION IS OR HOW IT WORKS. Which is okay! Not everyone does. But if you’re a history blog, trying to pass off Italian Baroque Art from the 1670’s as from the Georgian period is flat out wrong on every humanly possible level. How do I know it’s not Georgian, but Italian Baroque? Well, MPOC actually directly linked folks back to the original works and then bet NO ONE would check their facts. Talk about incriminating receipts, right? It’s a mistake anyone could make….except this is a history blog, and it’s not an easy mistake to make when you’re in the wrong CENTURY. The last photo is my accurate to period examples that i found quickly.  Periodization, by the way:  an act or instance of dividing a subject into historical eras for purposes of analysis and study. Periods are “named blocks of time” that can be geographically specific. They are often named for major historical events, famous people, or dates. Periods are useful for analyzing change, continuity, or advances over time. Examples: Meiji Japan, the Renaissance, the gilded age, the long 19th century, the 60’s.  
So MPOC hates historiography because its fluid/changing, different from art history in many ways, and not always precise — and therefore wrong. Then proceeds to prove their point by suggesting that the United States experienced the Victorian Era. Which, granted, the US did experience a multitude of influences from the “victorian era” but….it’s also no longer a part of the British empire in the 19th century. 
MPOC is asking people to pay them…..to break the law and/or do things that you can literally do yourself, for free or are already available for a price. IE: selling art prints of POC in art owned by different resources (museums, galleries, private owners, etc) is actually really illegal and against copyright. It’s technically illegal to put these images online without permissions anyways, but you don’t make a profit off of selling the art that isn’t owned by you when you do it. Interested in prints? Well you can either print off the image yourself for free,  or buy them from the actual museums and galleries themselves, furthering the support of the actual items! When you buy prints or postcards of art DIRECTLY from museums, you are funding museums. the money they get from giftshops is actually VERY IMPORTANT because museums and databases like the ones MPOC use are NON-PROFIT organizations AND this money will go to funding the museum, be that for outreach to children, conserving the art, paying their staff, publishing free educational materials, etc. It is an absolutely vital source of income for museums that serve their communities and want to keep their art accessible. There are a few collections which are free for reproduction commercially, like the National Gallery of Art but this isn’t the norm across the board. Besides that? Well I realize buying a $95 art book may be out of the range for some people’s pockets (TRUST ME: having been someone required to buy a lot of these textbooks which are pricey because of the vast amount of copyright fees paid to publish them), there are cheaper or used similar books on amazon AND several museums and universities have published some of their older books online for FREE. Which includes The Met. Why are you going to pay someone else to read books for you when they don’t even give you the facts right?? 
they want $1,200 a month to make lesson plans and curricula about art and art history but can’t even differentiate between two separate countries in two different time periods. This isn’t “one mistake” I found. This is systematically getting things wrong, including the time they claimed that Queen Urraca of Spain might possibly be Muslim — despite the fact that Queen Urraca of Spain spent her career helping and advocating the Reconquista - AKA the murder of muslim people in Spain. Uhhhh…Which of course: These lesson plans? Stuff like this already exists! By (surprise) Museum educators whose JOB it is full time to make this stuff. It’s almost like this stuff is ALREADY free online [The Met, The Getty, Asian Art Museum… pretty much any major museum on the planet….] AND THIS STUFF IS AVAILABLE AND READY TO BE USED. A LOT OF IT IS FREE. How do I know this magical stuff??? because (and I’m guessing here) UNLIKE MPOC I have actually taken a class on museum education. 
MPOC is offering to write a book. a really real published book. SPOILER ALERT: in the art history world, you GENERALLY have a PhD before you publish a book. Why? Because the PhD certifies you as an expert in the thing you study and it is an academic topic. No university/academic publisher alive would risk this. Is it maybe an ivory tower elitist thing? hell yeah it is. Would any editor in their right mind publish a book as riddled with basic factual errors as much as the MPOC blog? Hell no they would not. What about those publishers who publish psuedo-historical books like “PS ‘everything was made by aliens’” ? Well unless they want their asses sued to hell and back over copyrights, they probably won’t be able to foot the necessary bills for these images. Independent publishing doesn’t make any of it LESS illegal. They want to cover the license costs with crowd funding???  GREAT EXCEPT: According to Linda Downs, executive director of the College Art Association, image permissions and licensing costs for a 200-page art-history book average $7,000 to $10,000. Authors usually have to cover those costs themselves. Scholars in disciplines that aren’t so visual might jump at the chance to publish in both print and online formats, Ms. Downs told me in an e-mail. But “art historians will choose one or the other” because they might get hit with two sets of permissions fees and other restrictions. Good luck with that. In order to recoup those kinds of costs the books will NOT be cheap. 
MPOC has been called out by several NDN bloggers regarding the fact that they have been caught lying about their Native/POC heritage. Although the days of stupid_free and fandom_wank have long past, now we have other ways to collect receipts and here AND ALSO HERE REALLY IMPORTANT and know that they are white, white, white — and lied about who they were. Like here’s a hint there are NO Lakota reservations in AZ. If you really miss livejournal, however, you can see the call out on SF_DRAMA. The internet will never forget a white girl co-opting POC to garner cash.
they also have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of how to treat  jewish people in europe in history. which is called out here better than I ever can or could because I am not jewish. they also fumble with the Roma (which they claim to be) and that + the judaism issue is also called out here. 
don’t send this person harassment but don’t give them money holy shit y’all you are being scammed. SCAMMED. do not PAY people to feed you half-assed poor researched bullshit that is available free online. 
- a poc who is tired of the “best diversity in history” blog being wrong about pretty much everything 

What drives me nuts about MPOC is not just the fact that they present themselves as an authority on a subject that they have no learned expertise in. It’s that they present themselves as an authority not DESPITE having no expertise (which tbh I wouldn’t mind that much b/c at least it’s honest), but BECAUSE they have no expertise. They are part of a general trend on tumblr that asserts there is nothing valuable to be learned within the realm of post-secondary education, and the further outside traditional academics an individual is, the more trustworthy a source that individual becomes and the less their methods and words are questioned. It’s a form of reactionary anti-intellectualism and it’s also incredibly dishonest:

… self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals although pseudo-intellectualism is a more commonly… used description for this phenomenon.
In public discourse, anti-intellectuals are usually perceived and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk—populists against political elitism and academic elitism—proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education. [1] 

The reason it’s dishonest is because even though MPOC’s modus operandi is noble and a worthy pursuit of historical study, the blog is run with the attitude that it is a solitary example of progressivescholarship in a sea of rigid, racist academics who obviously don’t examine or re-asses their methodology. Because it’s not like there is an ENTIRE FIELD OF STUDY DEDICATED TO DOING JUST THAT.  MPOC likes to position themselves as an anti-establishment contrarian who is overturning dominant western myths that would NEVER EVER get questioned or discussed within the realms of actual academia. Just look at this shit they said recently when questioned about the veracity of wikipedia (emphasis mine):

"… the farther back you go, the fewer objects and documents that survive, so it becomes more open to individual interpretation.
And one of the problems there is that you get to a point where there are these interpretations that are considered beyond questioning or revising. It’s like, somewhere between “wicked rude” and “you’ll never get funding if you keep on like that”. As if revisiting primary sources is desecrating sacred ground; as if just kind of bypassing Mr. I Wrote The Book on It 300 Years Ago is equivalent to summoning the Elder Gods to consume civilization as we know it.
Which is why I do get messages from historians and “historians” like, “your methods are disgusting and unacceptable!!!” because yes, yes, I’m breaking the rules; yes, yes, I’m Doing It Wrong. I am a Bad Historian. I think this fails to take into account that I’ll go ahead and cite [that book]… but then I’ll have the brazen gall to disagree on the interpretation of that evidence.” [2]

They paint the academic study of history as inherently retrograde and incapable of self-reflection or change. In the atmosphere of debate MPOC creates, a “real historian” - the kind that frequently questions the methodology of MPOC - would NEVER have the “brazen gall” to question “Mr. I Wrote the Book 300 Years Ago” because the dominant western historical narrative is apparently sacrosanct. This is completely inaccurate, which MPOC would know if they had ever taken a single fucking history class in their entire lives, or even if they, you know, read the WIKIPEDIA PAGES for basic fucking things like the Annales School, E.H. Carr’s ‘What is History?’, Postcolonialism or Historical Revisionism. Hey, while we’re here, let’s check out the definition of that last one!!!!:

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.

Let’s repeat and emphasize that last sentence "CONSTANT REVISION OF HISTORY IS PART OF THE !!!NORMAL!!! SCHOLARLY PROCESS OF WRITING HISTORY”. Wow, it’s almost like MPOC’s insistence that academic historians “don’t question” secondary sources that “have been around long enough” is a completely bullshit statement designed to make their naive readers skeptical and distrustful of rigorous scholarship in order to give false authority to their own statements.
They don’t even explain coherently WHY they hate certain types of methodology and historiography, they simply react against them because if it’s part of the establishment it must be wrong and if the establishment is wrong, that means MPOC is the authority on the subject and if you question them, it’s because you’re narrow-minded. They spend a lot of time furiously debunking various forms of methodology and categorization as “irrelevant” seemingly because they’ve been called out on not understanding the basic tenants (ie; their tireless crusade against periodization based entirely on a strawman of what they think periodization is and the fact that they’ve been questioned multiple times about their inaccurate application of historical periods).
I’m not saying that it’s impossible to be a fantastic amateur historian. I’m not making an argument that only people who have been formally and academically trained in a subject are allowed to talk about it. I’m saying that MPOC deliberately misrepresents what formal academic history is so that it’s easy for them to dismiss criticism of their own methodology. I actually think they have the potential to be a p. decent history blog if just they would stop trying to position themselves as some sort of iconoclastic history Robin Hood.

Objectivity is a myth. We don’t suddenly stop being human when we start thinking about something! The problem is that there is a lack of openness, a lack of discussion, and a massive amount if bias that only goes one way. There is only one narrative, and no counternarrative. [3]

Provably untrue. There is no want for discussion and counter-narrative in academic historiography.
I agree that objectivity is a largely a myth, but MPOC does a dishonest double-whammy by insisting that because objectivity is objectively impossible, it’s pointless (and implicitly bigoted) to strive for it. They also use the “objectivity is a myth” defense to create a paradigm in which they can admit their bias while still positioning their scholarship as intrinsically more “truthy” than the “real historians” who criticize them because their bias is noble and progressive.

I’ve said time after time after TIME, THIS IS THE STUFF YOU DON’T. LEARN. IN. CLASSES. IF YOU WANT THE STUFF YOU LEARN IN CLASS, GO TO CLASS. AREN’T YOU LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND GET YOUR APPROVED TRUTHS IN THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENT. [4]

How many times do people who actually went to university for history have to tell MPOC that a lot of this stuff is commonly taught in their programs and, furthermore, most of it is historiography 101. Hell, I went to a tiny, local university not particularly known for it’s history department and my ‘Western Civilization 1000’ course was about the interconnected histories of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. We spent as long studying Ethiopia as we did the rise of Islam and the Reformation. Our textbooks were very common, widely taught academic readers used throughout North America and English-speaking Europe so it’s not like it was some kind of intentionally revisionist course or w/e.

Do any of you have any idea how amazing the concept of “we have created entirely new questions regarding ancient history/historiography” is????
We have proved that this level of discourse can be made accessible, and I’m pretty sure we all just leveled up. [5]

The discussion on MPOC is TOTALLY REVOLUTIONARY SCHOLARSHIP that would otherwise NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO LAYPEOPLE!!! AMAZING!!!! They are asking questions that have NEVER BEEN ASKED!!!!
MPOC claims from one side of their mouth that they don’t intend for their readers to take them as an authority and they welcome well-thought out criticism [6] while from the other side they insist that they are a source of information and perspective that is otherwise unrepresented in the academic world.
The blog is scholarship by a person who insists that traditional methodology is unimportant. MPOC also emphasizes the myth of “inaccessible” academia, adding to an atmosphere that discourages people from engaging with critical scholarship because it’s “elitist” and only for “rich white kids” despite the increasing efforts on the part of scholars from minority or oppressed groups to make scholarly readings available and inclusive.
LIKE THE ONES OP LINKED IN THEIR POST. GO CHECK THOSE OUT IF YOU’RE INTERESTED.
Zoom Info
cephiedvariable:

desidere:

MedievalPOC is scamming you, here’s how and why: 
For all that MedievalPOC railed against how “awful” periodization in this reblog, what they mostly did was prove they have ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT PERIODIZATION IS OR HOW IT WORKS. Which is okay! Not everyone does. But if you’re a history blog, trying to pass off Italian Baroque Art from the 1670’s as from the Georgian period is flat out wrong on every humanly possible level. How do I know it’s not Georgian, but Italian Baroque? Well, MPOC actually directly linked folks back to the original works and then bet NO ONE would check their facts. Talk about incriminating receipts, right? It’s a mistake anyone could make….except this is a history blog, and it’s not an easy mistake to make when you’re in the wrong CENTURY. The last photo is my accurate to period examples that i found quickly.  Periodization, by the way:  an act or instance of dividing a subject into historical eras for purposes of analysis and study. Periods are “named blocks of time” that can be geographically specific. They are often named for major historical events, famous people, or dates. Periods are useful for analyzing change, continuity, or advances over time. Examples: Meiji Japan, the Renaissance, the gilded age, the long 19th century, the 60’s.  
So MPOC hates historiography because its fluid/changing, different from art history in many ways, and not always precise — and therefore wrong. Then proceeds to prove their point by suggesting that the United States experienced the Victorian Era. Which, granted, the US did experience a multitude of influences from the “victorian era” but….it’s also no longer a part of the British empire in the 19th century. 
MPOC is asking people to pay them…..to break the law and/or do things that you can literally do yourself, for free or are already available for a price. IE: selling art prints of POC in art owned by different resources (museums, galleries, private owners, etc) is actually really illegal and against copyright. It’s technically illegal to put these images online without permissions anyways, but you don’t make a profit off of selling the art that isn’t owned by you when you do it. Interested in prints? Well you can either print off the image yourself for free,  or buy them from the actual museums and galleries themselves, furthering the support of the actual items! When you buy prints or postcards of art DIRECTLY from museums, you are funding museums. the money they get from giftshops is actually VERY IMPORTANT because museums and databases like the ones MPOC use are NON-PROFIT organizations AND this money will go to funding the museum, be that for outreach to children, conserving the art, paying their staff, publishing free educational materials, etc. It is an absolutely vital source of income for museums that serve their communities and want to keep their art accessible. There are a few collections which are free for reproduction commercially, like the National Gallery of Art but this isn’t the norm across the board. Besides that? Well I realize buying a $95 art book may be out of the range for some people’s pockets (TRUST ME: having been someone required to buy a lot of these textbooks which are pricey because of the vast amount of copyright fees paid to publish them), there are cheaper or used similar books on amazon AND several museums and universities have published some of their older books online for FREE. Which includes The Met. Why are you going to pay someone else to read books for you when they don’t even give you the facts right?? 
they want $1,200 a month to make lesson plans and curricula about art and art history but can’t even differentiate between two separate countries in two different time periods. This isn’t “one mistake” I found. This is systematically getting things wrong, including the time they claimed that Queen Urraca of Spain might possibly be Muslim — despite the fact that Queen Urraca of Spain spent her career helping and advocating the Reconquista - AKA the murder of muslim people in Spain. Uhhhh…Which of course: These lesson plans? Stuff like this already exists! By (surprise) Museum educators whose JOB it is full time to make this stuff. It’s almost like this stuff is ALREADY free online [The Met, The Getty, Asian Art Museum… pretty much any major museum on the planet….] AND THIS STUFF IS AVAILABLE AND READY TO BE USED. A LOT OF IT IS FREE. How do I know this magical stuff??? because (and I’m guessing here) UNLIKE MPOC I have actually taken a class on museum education. 
MPOC is offering to write a book. a really real published book. SPOILER ALERT: in the art history world, you GENERALLY have a PhD before you publish a book. Why? Because the PhD certifies you as an expert in the thing you study and it is an academic topic. No university/academic publisher alive would risk this. Is it maybe an ivory tower elitist thing? hell yeah it is. Would any editor in their right mind publish a book as riddled with basic factual errors as much as the MPOC blog? Hell no they would not. What about those publishers who publish psuedo-historical books like “PS ‘everything was made by aliens’” ? Well unless they want their asses sued to hell and back over copyrights, they probably won’t be able to foot the necessary bills for these images. Independent publishing doesn’t make any of it LESS illegal. They want to cover the license costs with crowd funding???  GREAT EXCEPT: According to Linda Downs, executive director of the College Art Association, image permissions and licensing costs for a 200-page art-history book average $7,000 to $10,000. Authors usually have to cover those costs themselves. Scholars in disciplines that aren’t so visual might jump at the chance to publish in both print and online formats, Ms. Downs told me in an e-mail. But “art historians will choose one or the other” because they might get hit with two sets of permissions fees and other restrictions. Good luck with that. In order to recoup those kinds of costs the books will NOT be cheap. 
MPOC has been called out by several NDN bloggers regarding the fact that they have been caught lying about their Native/POC heritage. Although the days of stupid_free and fandom_wank have long past, now we have other ways to collect receipts and here AND ALSO HERE REALLY IMPORTANT and know that they are white, white, white — and lied about who they were. Like here’s a hint there are NO Lakota reservations in AZ. If you really miss livejournal, however, you can see the call out on SF_DRAMA. The internet will never forget a white girl co-opting POC to garner cash.
they also have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of how to treat  jewish people in europe in history. which is called out here better than I ever can or could because I am not jewish. they also fumble with the Roma (which they claim to be) and that + the judaism issue is also called out here. 
don’t send this person harassment but don’t give them money holy shit y’all you are being scammed. SCAMMED. do not PAY people to feed you half-assed poor researched bullshit that is available free online. 
- a poc who is tired of the “best diversity in history” blog being wrong about pretty much everything 

What drives me nuts about MPOC is not just the fact that they present themselves as an authority on a subject that they have no learned expertise in. It’s that they present themselves as an authority not DESPITE having no expertise (which tbh I wouldn’t mind that much b/c at least it’s honest), but BECAUSE they have no expertise. They are part of a general trend on tumblr that asserts there is nothing valuable to be learned within the realm of post-secondary education, and the further outside traditional academics an individual is, the more trustworthy a source that individual becomes and the less their methods and words are questioned. It’s a form of reactionary anti-intellectualism and it’s also incredibly dishonest:

… self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals although pseudo-intellectualism is a more commonly… used description for this phenomenon.
In public discourse, anti-intellectuals are usually perceived and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk—populists against political elitism and academic elitism—proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education. [1] 

The reason it’s dishonest is because even though MPOC’s modus operandi is noble and a worthy pursuit of historical study, the blog is run with the attitude that it is a solitary example of progressivescholarship in a sea of rigid, racist academics who obviously don’t examine or re-asses their methodology. Because it’s not like there is an ENTIRE FIELD OF STUDY DEDICATED TO DOING JUST THAT.  MPOC likes to position themselves as an anti-establishment contrarian who is overturning dominant western myths that would NEVER EVER get questioned or discussed within the realms of actual academia. Just look at this shit they said recently when questioned about the veracity of wikipedia (emphasis mine):

"… the farther back you go, the fewer objects and documents that survive, so it becomes more open to individual interpretation.
And one of the problems there is that you get to a point where there are these interpretations that are considered beyond questioning or revising. It’s like, somewhere between “wicked rude” and “you’ll never get funding if you keep on like that”. As if revisiting primary sources is desecrating sacred ground; as if just kind of bypassing Mr. I Wrote The Book on It 300 Years Ago is equivalent to summoning the Elder Gods to consume civilization as we know it.
Which is why I do get messages from historians and “historians” like, “your methods are disgusting and unacceptable!!!” because yes, yes, I’m breaking the rules; yes, yes, I’m Doing It Wrong. I am a Bad Historian. I think this fails to take into account that I’ll go ahead and cite [that book]… but then I’ll have the brazen gall to disagree on the interpretation of that evidence.” [2]

They paint the academic study of history as inherently retrograde and incapable of self-reflection or change. In the atmosphere of debate MPOC creates, a “real historian” - the kind that frequently questions the methodology of MPOC - would NEVER have the “brazen gall” to question “Mr. I Wrote the Book 300 Years Ago” because the dominant western historical narrative is apparently sacrosanct. This is completely inaccurate, which MPOC would know if they had ever taken a single fucking history class in their entire lives, or even if they, you know, read the WIKIPEDIA PAGES for basic fucking things like the Annales School, E.H. Carr’s ‘What is History?’, Postcolonialism or Historical Revisionism. Hey, while we’re here, let’s check out the definition of that last one!!!!:

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.

Let’s repeat and emphasize that last sentence "CONSTANT REVISION OF HISTORY IS PART OF THE !!!NORMAL!!! SCHOLARLY PROCESS OF WRITING HISTORY”. Wow, it’s almost like MPOC’s insistence that academic historians “don’t question” secondary sources that “have been around long enough” is a completely bullshit statement designed to make their naive readers skeptical and distrustful of rigorous scholarship in order to give false authority to their own statements.
They don’t even explain coherently WHY they hate certain types of methodology and historiography, they simply react against them because if it’s part of the establishment it must be wrong and if the establishment is wrong, that means MPOC is the authority on the subject and if you question them, it’s because you’re narrow-minded. They spend a lot of time furiously debunking various forms of methodology and categorization as “irrelevant” seemingly because they’ve been called out on not understanding the basic tenants (ie; their tireless crusade against periodization based entirely on a strawman of what they think periodization is and the fact that they’ve been questioned multiple times about their inaccurate application of historical periods).
I’m not saying that it’s impossible to be a fantastic amateur historian. I’m not making an argument that only people who have been formally and academically trained in a subject are allowed to talk about it. I’m saying that MPOC deliberately misrepresents what formal academic history is so that it’s easy for them to dismiss criticism of their own methodology. I actually think they have the potential to be a p. decent history blog if just they would stop trying to position themselves as some sort of iconoclastic history Robin Hood.

Objectivity is a myth. We don’t suddenly stop being human when we start thinking about something! The problem is that there is a lack of openness, a lack of discussion, and a massive amount if bias that only goes one way. There is only one narrative, and no counternarrative. [3]

Provably untrue. There is no want for discussion and counter-narrative in academic historiography.
I agree that objectivity is a largely a myth, but MPOC does a dishonest double-whammy by insisting that because objectivity is objectively impossible, it’s pointless (and implicitly bigoted) to strive for it. They also use the “objectivity is a myth” defense to create a paradigm in which they can admit their bias while still positioning their scholarship as intrinsically more “truthy” than the “real historians” who criticize them because their bias is noble and progressive.

I’ve said time after time after TIME, THIS IS THE STUFF YOU DON’T. LEARN. IN. CLASSES. IF YOU WANT THE STUFF YOU LEARN IN CLASS, GO TO CLASS. AREN’T YOU LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND GET YOUR APPROVED TRUTHS IN THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENT. [4]

How many times do people who actually went to university for history have to tell MPOC that a lot of this stuff is commonly taught in their programs and, furthermore, most of it is historiography 101. Hell, I went to a tiny, local university not particularly known for it’s history department and my ‘Western Civilization 1000’ course was about the interconnected histories of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. We spent as long studying Ethiopia as we did the rise of Islam and the Reformation. Our textbooks were very common, widely taught academic readers used throughout North America and English-speaking Europe so it’s not like it was some kind of intentionally revisionist course or w/e.

Do any of you have any idea how amazing the concept of “we have created entirely new questions regarding ancient history/historiography” is????
We have proved that this level of discourse can be made accessible, and I’m pretty sure we all just leveled up. [5]

The discussion on MPOC is TOTALLY REVOLUTIONARY SCHOLARSHIP that would otherwise NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO LAYPEOPLE!!! AMAZING!!!! They are asking questions that have NEVER BEEN ASKED!!!!
MPOC claims from one side of their mouth that they don’t intend for their readers to take them as an authority and they welcome well-thought out criticism [6] while from the other side they insist that they are a source of information and perspective that is otherwise unrepresented in the academic world.
The blog is scholarship by a person who insists that traditional methodology is unimportant. MPOC also emphasizes the myth of “inaccessible” academia, adding to an atmosphere that discourages people from engaging with critical scholarship because it’s “elitist” and only for “rich white kids” despite the increasing efforts on the part of scholars from minority or oppressed groups to make scholarly readings available and inclusive.
LIKE THE ONES OP LINKED IN THEIR POST. GO CHECK THOSE OUT IF YOU’RE INTERESTED.
Zoom Info
cephiedvariable:

desidere:

MedievalPOC is scamming you, here’s how and why: 
For all that MedievalPOC railed against how “awful” periodization in this reblog, what they mostly did was prove they have ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT PERIODIZATION IS OR HOW IT WORKS. Which is okay! Not everyone does. But if you’re a history blog, trying to pass off Italian Baroque Art from the 1670’s as from the Georgian period is flat out wrong on every humanly possible level. How do I know it’s not Georgian, but Italian Baroque? Well, MPOC actually directly linked folks back to the original works and then bet NO ONE would check their facts. Talk about incriminating receipts, right? It’s a mistake anyone could make….except this is a history blog, and it’s not an easy mistake to make when you’re in the wrong CENTURY. The last photo is my accurate to period examples that i found quickly.  Periodization, by the way:  an act or instance of dividing a subject into historical eras for purposes of analysis and study. Periods are “named blocks of time” that can be geographically specific. They are often named for major historical events, famous people, or dates. Periods are useful for analyzing change, continuity, or advances over time. Examples: Meiji Japan, the Renaissance, the gilded age, the long 19th century, the 60’s.  
So MPOC hates historiography because its fluid/changing, different from art history in many ways, and not always precise — and therefore wrong. Then proceeds to prove their point by suggesting that the United States experienced the Victorian Era. Which, granted, the US did experience a multitude of influences from the “victorian era” but….it’s also no longer a part of the British empire in the 19th century. 
MPOC is asking people to pay them…..to break the law and/or do things that you can literally do yourself, for free or are already available for a price. IE: selling art prints of POC in art owned by different resources (museums, galleries, private owners, etc) is actually really illegal and against copyright. It’s technically illegal to put these images online without permissions anyways, but you don’t make a profit off of selling the art that isn’t owned by you when you do it. Interested in prints? Well you can either print off the image yourself for free,  or buy them from the actual museums and galleries themselves, furthering the support of the actual items! When you buy prints or postcards of art DIRECTLY from museums, you are funding museums. the money they get from giftshops is actually VERY IMPORTANT because museums and databases like the ones MPOC use are NON-PROFIT organizations AND this money will go to funding the museum, be that for outreach to children, conserving the art, paying their staff, publishing free educational materials, etc. It is an absolutely vital source of income for museums that serve their communities and want to keep their art accessible. There are a few collections which are free for reproduction commercially, like the National Gallery of Art but this isn’t the norm across the board. Besides that? Well I realize buying a $95 art book may be out of the range for some people’s pockets (TRUST ME: having been someone required to buy a lot of these textbooks which are pricey because of the vast amount of copyright fees paid to publish them), there are cheaper or used similar books on amazon AND several museums and universities have published some of their older books online for FREE. Which includes The Met. Why are you going to pay someone else to read books for you when they don’t even give you the facts right?? 
they want $1,200 a month to make lesson plans and curricula about art and art history but can’t even differentiate between two separate countries in two different time periods. This isn’t “one mistake” I found. This is systematically getting things wrong, including the time they claimed that Queen Urraca of Spain might possibly be Muslim — despite the fact that Queen Urraca of Spain spent her career helping and advocating the Reconquista - AKA the murder of muslim people in Spain. Uhhhh…Which of course: These lesson plans? Stuff like this already exists! By (surprise) Museum educators whose JOB it is full time to make this stuff. It’s almost like this stuff is ALREADY free online [The Met, The Getty, Asian Art Museum… pretty much any major museum on the planet….] AND THIS STUFF IS AVAILABLE AND READY TO BE USED. A LOT OF IT IS FREE. How do I know this magical stuff??? because (and I’m guessing here) UNLIKE MPOC I have actually taken a class on museum education. 
MPOC is offering to write a book. a really real published book. SPOILER ALERT: in the art history world, you GENERALLY have a PhD before you publish a book. Why? Because the PhD certifies you as an expert in the thing you study and it is an academic topic. No university/academic publisher alive would risk this. Is it maybe an ivory tower elitist thing? hell yeah it is. Would any editor in their right mind publish a book as riddled with basic factual errors as much as the MPOC blog? Hell no they would not. What about those publishers who publish psuedo-historical books like “PS ‘everything was made by aliens’” ? Well unless they want their asses sued to hell and back over copyrights, they probably won’t be able to foot the necessary bills for these images. Independent publishing doesn’t make any of it LESS illegal. They want to cover the license costs with crowd funding???  GREAT EXCEPT: According to Linda Downs, executive director of the College Art Association, image permissions and licensing costs for a 200-page art-history book average $7,000 to $10,000. Authors usually have to cover those costs themselves. Scholars in disciplines that aren’t so visual might jump at the chance to publish in both print and online formats, Ms. Downs told me in an e-mail. But “art historians will choose one or the other” because they might get hit with two sets of permissions fees and other restrictions. Good luck with that. In order to recoup those kinds of costs the books will NOT be cheap. 
MPOC has been called out by several NDN bloggers regarding the fact that they have been caught lying about their Native/POC heritage. Although the days of stupid_free and fandom_wank have long past, now we have other ways to collect receipts and here AND ALSO HERE REALLY IMPORTANT and know that they are white, white, white — and lied about who they were. Like here’s a hint there are NO Lakota reservations in AZ. If you really miss livejournal, however, you can see the call out on SF_DRAMA. The internet will never forget a white girl co-opting POC to garner cash.
they also have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of how to treat  jewish people in europe in history. which is called out here better than I ever can or could because I am not jewish. they also fumble with the Roma (which they claim to be) and that + the judaism issue is also called out here. 
don’t send this person harassment but don’t give them money holy shit y’all you are being scammed. SCAMMED. do not PAY people to feed you half-assed poor researched bullshit that is available free online. 
- a poc who is tired of the “best diversity in history” blog being wrong about pretty much everything 

What drives me nuts about MPOC is not just the fact that they present themselves as an authority on a subject that they have no learned expertise in. It’s that they present themselves as an authority not DESPITE having no expertise (which tbh I wouldn’t mind that much b/c at least it’s honest), but BECAUSE they have no expertise. They are part of a general trend on tumblr that asserts there is nothing valuable to be learned within the realm of post-secondary education, and the further outside traditional academics an individual is, the more trustworthy a source that individual becomes and the less their methods and words are questioned. It’s a form of reactionary anti-intellectualism and it’s also incredibly dishonest:

… self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals although pseudo-intellectualism is a more commonly… used description for this phenomenon.
In public discourse, anti-intellectuals are usually perceived and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk—populists against political elitism and academic elitism—proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education. [1] 

The reason it’s dishonest is because even though MPOC’s modus operandi is noble and a worthy pursuit of historical study, the blog is run with the attitude that it is a solitary example of progressivescholarship in a sea of rigid, racist academics who obviously don’t examine or re-asses their methodology. Because it’s not like there is an ENTIRE FIELD OF STUDY DEDICATED TO DOING JUST THAT.  MPOC likes to position themselves as an anti-establishment contrarian who is overturning dominant western myths that would NEVER EVER get questioned or discussed within the realms of actual academia. Just look at this shit they said recently when questioned about the veracity of wikipedia (emphasis mine):

"… the farther back you go, the fewer objects and documents that survive, so it becomes more open to individual interpretation.
And one of the problems there is that you get to a point where there are these interpretations that are considered beyond questioning or revising. It’s like, somewhere between “wicked rude” and “you’ll never get funding if you keep on like that”. As if revisiting primary sources is desecrating sacred ground; as if just kind of bypassing Mr. I Wrote The Book on It 300 Years Ago is equivalent to summoning the Elder Gods to consume civilization as we know it.
Which is why I do get messages from historians and “historians” like, “your methods are disgusting and unacceptable!!!” because yes, yes, I’m breaking the rules; yes, yes, I’m Doing It Wrong. I am a Bad Historian. I think this fails to take into account that I’ll go ahead and cite [that book]… but then I’ll have the brazen gall to disagree on the interpretation of that evidence.” [2]

They paint the academic study of history as inherently retrograde and incapable of self-reflection or change. In the atmosphere of debate MPOC creates, a “real historian” - the kind that frequently questions the methodology of MPOC - would NEVER have the “brazen gall” to question “Mr. I Wrote the Book 300 Years Ago” because the dominant western historical narrative is apparently sacrosanct. This is completely inaccurate, which MPOC would know if they had ever taken a single fucking history class in their entire lives, or even if they, you know, read the WIKIPEDIA PAGES for basic fucking things like the Annales School, E.H. Carr’s ‘What is History?’, Postcolonialism or Historical Revisionism. Hey, while we’re here, let’s check out the definition of that last one!!!!:

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.

Let’s repeat and emphasize that last sentence "CONSTANT REVISION OF HISTORY IS PART OF THE !!!NORMAL!!! SCHOLARLY PROCESS OF WRITING HISTORY”. Wow, it’s almost like MPOC’s insistence that academic historians “don’t question” secondary sources that “have been around long enough” is a completely bullshit statement designed to make their naive readers skeptical and distrustful of rigorous scholarship in order to give false authority to their own statements.
They don’t even explain coherently WHY they hate certain types of methodology and historiography, they simply react against them because if it’s part of the establishment it must be wrong and if the establishment is wrong, that means MPOC is the authority on the subject and if you question them, it’s because you’re narrow-minded. They spend a lot of time furiously debunking various forms of methodology and categorization as “irrelevant” seemingly because they’ve been called out on not understanding the basic tenants (ie; their tireless crusade against periodization based entirely on a strawman of what they think periodization is and the fact that they’ve been questioned multiple times about their inaccurate application of historical periods).
I’m not saying that it’s impossible to be a fantastic amateur historian. I’m not making an argument that only people who have been formally and academically trained in a subject are allowed to talk about it. I’m saying that MPOC deliberately misrepresents what formal academic history is so that it’s easy for them to dismiss criticism of their own methodology. I actually think they have the potential to be a p. decent history blog if just they would stop trying to position themselves as some sort of iconoclastic history Robin Hood.

Objectivity is a myth. We don’t suddenly stop being human when we start thinking about something! The problem is that there is a lack of openness, a lack of discussion, and a massive amount if bias that only goes one way. There is only one narrative, and no counternarrative. [3]

Provably untrue. There is no want for discussion and counter-narrative in academic historiography.
I agree that objectivity is a largely a myth, but MPOC does a dishonest double-whammy by insisting that because objectivity is objectively impossible, it’s pointless (and implicitly bigoted) to strive for it. They also use the “objectivity is a myth” defense to create a paradigm in which they can admit their bias while still positioning their scholarship as intrinsically more “truthy” than the “real historians” who criticize them because their bias is noble and progressive.

I’ve said time after time after TIME, THIS IS THE STUFF YOU DON’T. LEARN. IN. CLASSES. IF YOU WANT THE STUFF YOU LEARN IN CLASS, GO TO CLASS. AREN’T YOU LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND GET YOUR APPROVED TRUTHS IN THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENT. [4]

How many times do people who actually went to university for history have to tell MPOC that a lot of this stuff is commonly taught in their programs and, furthermore, most of it is historiography 101. Hell, I went to a tiny, local university not particularly known for it’s history department and my ‘Western Civilization 1000’ course was about the interconnected histories of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. We spent as long studying Ethiopia as we did the rise of Islam and the Reformation. Our textbooks were very common, widely taught academic readers used throughout North America and English-speaking Europe so it’s not like it was some kind of intentionally revisionist course or w/e.

Do any of you have any idea how amazing the concept of “we have created entirely new questions regarding ancient history/historiography” is????
We have proved that this level of discourse can be made accessible, and I’m pretty sure we all just leveled up. [5]

The discussion on MPOC is TOTALLY REVOLUTIONARY SCHOLARSHIP that would otherwise NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO LAYPEOPLE!!! AMAZING!!!! They are asking questions that have NEVER BEEN ASKED!!!!
MPOC claims from one side of their mouth that they don’t intend for their readers to take them as an authority and they welcome well-thought out criticism [6] while from the other side they insist that they are a source of information and perspective that is otherwise unrepresented in the academic world.
The blog is scholarship by a person who insists that traditional methodology is unimportant. MPOC also emphasizes the myth of “inaccessible” academia, adding to an atmosphere that discourages people from engaging with critical scholarship because it’s “elitist” and only for “rich white kids” despite the increasing efforts on the part of scholars from minority or oppressed groups to make scholarly readings available and inclusive.
LIKE THE ONES OP LINKED IN THEIR POST. GO CHECK THOSE OUT IF YOU’RE INTERESTED.
Zoom Info
cephiedvariable:

desidere:

MedievalPOC is scamming you, here’s how and why: 
For all that MedievalPOC railed against how “awful” periodization in this reblog, what they mostly did was prove they have ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT PERIODIZATION IS OR HOW IT WORKS. Which is okay! Not everyone does. But if you’re a history blog, trying to pass off Italian Baroque Art from the 1670’s as from the Georgian period is flat out wrong on every humanly possible level. How do I know it’s not Georgian, but Italian Baroque? Well, MPOC actually directly linked folks back to the original works and then bet NO ONE would check their facts. Talk about incriminating receipts, right? It’s a mistake anyone could make….except this is a history blog, and it’s not an easy mistake to make when you’re in the wrong CENTURY. The last photo is my accurate to period examples that i found quickly.  Periodization, by the way:  an act or instance of dividing a subject into historical eras for purposes of analysis and study. Periods are “named blocks of time” that can be geographically specific. They are often named for major historical events, famous people, or dates. Periods are useful for analyzing change, continuity, or advances over time. Examples: Meiji Japan, the Renaissance, the gilded age, the long 19th century, the 60’s.  
So MPOC hates historiography because its fluid/changing, different from art history in many ways, and not always precise — and therefore wrong. Then proceeds to prove their point by suggesting that the United States experienced the Victorian Era. Which, granted, the US did experience a multitude of influences from the “victorian era” but….it’s also no longer a part of the British empire in the 19th century. 
MPOC is asking people to pay them…..to break the law and/or do things that you can literally do yourself, for free or are already available for a price. IE: selling art prints of POC in art owned by different resources (museums, galleries, private owners, etc) is actually really illegal and against copyright. It’s technically illegal to put these images online without permissions anyways, but you don’t make a profit off of selling the art that isn’t owned by you when you do it. Interested in prints? Well you can either print off the image yourself for free,  or buy them from the actual museums and galleries themselves, furthering the support of the actual items! When you buy prints or postcards of art DIRECTLY from museums, you are funding museums. the money they get from giftshops is actually VERY IMPORTANT because museums and databases like the ones MPOC use are NON-PROFIT organizations AND this money will go to funding the museum, be that for outreach to children, conserving the art, paying their staff, publishing free educational materials, etc. It is an absolutely vital source of income for museums that serve their communities and want to keep their art accessible. There are a few collections which are free for reproduction commercially, like the National Gallery of Art but this isn’t the norm across the board. Besides that? Well I realize buying a $95 art book may be out of the range for some people’s pockets (TRUST ME: having been someone required to buy a lot of these textbooks which are pricey because of the vast amount of copyright fees paid to publish them), there are cheaper or used similar books on amazon AND several museums and universities have published some of their older books online for FREE. Which includes The Met. Why are you going to pay someone else to read books for you when they don’t even give you the facts right?? 
they want $1,200 a month to make lesson plans and curricula about art and art history but can’t even differentiate between two separate countries in two different time periods. This isn’t “one mistake” I found. This is systematically getting things wrong, including the time they claimed that Queen Urraca of Spain might possibly be Muslim — despite the fact that Queen Urraca of Spain spent her career helping and advocating the Reconquista - AKA the murder of muslim people in Spain. Uhhhh…Which of course: These lesson plans? Stuff like this already exists! By (surprise) Museum educators whose JOB it is full time to make this stuff. It’s almost like this stuff is ALREADY free online [The Met, The Getty, Asian Art Museum… pretty much any major museum on the planet….] AND THIS STUFF IS AVAILABLE AND READY TO BE USED. A LOT OF IT IS FREE. How do I know this magical stuff??? because (and I’m guessing here) UNLIKE MPOC I have actually taken a class on museum education. 
MPOC is offering to write a book. a really real published book. SPOILER ALERT: in the art history world, you GENERALLY have a PhD before you publish a book. Why? Because the PhD certifies you as an expert in the thing you study and it is an academic topic. No university/academic publisher alive would risk this. Is it maybe an ivory tower elitist thing? hell yeah it is. Would any editor in their right mind publish a book as riddled with basic factual errors as much as the MPOC blog? Hell no they would not. What about those publishers who publish psuedo-historical books like “PS ‘everything was made by aliens’” ? Well unless they want their asses sued to hell and back over copyrights, they probably won’t be able to foot the necessary bills for these images. Independent publishing doesn’t make any of it LESS illegal. They want to cover the license costs with crowd funding???  GREAT EXCEPT: According to Linda Downs, executive director of the College Art Association, image permissions and licensing costs for a 200-page art-history book average $7,000 to $10,000. Authors usually have to cover those costs themselves. Scholars in disciplines that aren’t so visual might jump at the chance to publish in both print and online formats, Ms. Downs told me in an e-mail. But “art historians will choose one or the other” because they might get hit with two sets of permissions fees and other restrictions. Good luck with that. In order to recoup those kinds of costs the books will NOT be cheap. 
MPOC has been called out by several NDN bloggers regarding the fact that they have been caught lying about their Native/POC heritage. Although the days of stupid_free and fandom_wank have long past, now we have other ways to collect receipts and here AND ALSO HERE REALLY IMPORTANT and know that they are white, white, white — and lied about who they were. Like here’s a hint there are NO Lakota reservations in AZ. If you really miss livejournal, however, you can see the call out on SF_DRAMA. The internet will never forget a white girl co-opting POC to garner cash.
they also have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of how to treat  jewish people in europe in history. which is called out here better than I ever can or could because I am not jewish. they also fumble with the Roma (which they claim to be) and that + the judaism issue is also called out here. 
don’t send this person harassment but don’t give them money holy shit y’all you are being scammed. SCAMMED. do not PAY people to feed you half-assed poor researched bullshit that is available free online. 
- a poc who is tired of the “best diversity in history” blog being wrong about pretty much everything 

What drives me nuts about MPOC is not just the fact that they present themselves as an authority on a subject that they have no learned expertise in. It’s that they present themselves as an authority not DESPITE having no expertise (which tbh I wouldn’t mind that much b/c at least it’s honest), but BECAUSE they have no expertise. They are part of a general trend on tumblr that asserts there is nothing valuable to be learned within the realm of post-secondary education, and the further outside traditional academics an individual is, the more trustworthy a source that individual becomes and the less their methods and words are questioned. It’s a form of reactionary anti-intellectualism and it’s also incredibly dishonest:

… self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals although pseudo-intellectualism is a more commonly… used description for this phenomenon.
In public discourse, anti-intellectuals are usually perceived and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk—populists against political elitism and academic elitism—proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education. [1] 

The reason it’s dishonest is because even though MPOC’s modus operandi is noble and a worthy pursuit of historical study, the blog is run with the attitude that it is a solitary example of progressivescholarship in a sea of rigid, racist academics who obviously don’t examine or re-asses their methodology. Because it’s not like there is an ENTIRE FIELD OF STUDY DEDICATED TO DOING JUST THAT.  MPOC likes to position themselves as an anti-establishment contrarian who is overturning dominant western myths that would NEVER EVER get questioned or discussed within the realms of actual academia. Just look at this shit they said recently when questioned about the veracity of wikipedia (emphasis mine):

"… the farther back you go, the fewer objects and documents that survive, so it becomes more open to individual interpretation.
And one of the problems there is that you get to a point where there are these interpretations that are considered beyond questioning or revising. It’s like, somewhere between “wicked rude” and “you’ll never get funding if you keep on like that”. As if revisiting primary sources is desecrating sacred ground; as if just kind of bypassing Mr. I Wrote The Book on It 300 Years Ago is equivalent to summoning the Elder Gods to consume civilization as we know it.
Which is why I do get messages from historians and “historians” like, “your methods are disgusting and unacceptable!!!” because yes, yes, I’m breaking the rules; yes, yes, I’m Doing It Wrong. I am a Bad Historian. I think this fails to take into account that I’ll go ahead and cite [that book]… but then I’ll have the brazen gall to disagree on the interpretation of that evidence.” [2]

They paint the academic study of history as inherently retrograde and incapable of self-reflection or change. In the atmosphere of debate MPOC creates, a “real historian” - the kind that frequently questions the methodology of MPOC - would NEVER have the “brazen gall” to question “Mr. I Wrote the Book 300 Years Ago” because the dominant western historical narrative is apparently sacrosanct. This is completely inaccurate, which MPOC would know if they had ever taken a single fucking history class in their entire lives, or even if they, you know, read the WIKIPEDIA PAGES for basic fucking things like the Annales School, E.H. Carr’s ‘What is History?’, Postcolonialism or Historical Revisionism. Hey, while we’re here, let’s check out the definition of that last one!!!!:

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.

Let’s repeat and emphasize that last sentence "CONSTANT REVISION OF HISTORY IS PART OF THE !!!NORMAL!!! SCHOLARLY PROCESS OF WRITING HISTORY”. Wow, it’s almost like MPOC’s insistence that academic historians “don’t question” secondary sources that “have been around long enough” is a completely bullshit statement designed to make their naive readers skeptical and distrustful of rigorous scholarship in order to give false authority to their own statements.
They don’t even explain coherently WHY they hate certain types of methodology and historiography, they simply react against them because if it’s part of the establishment it must be wrong and if the establishment is wrong, that means MPOC is the authority on the subject and if you question them, it’s because you’re narrow-minded. They spend a lot of time furiously debunking various forms of methodology and categorization as “irrelevant” seemingly because they’ve been called out on not understanding the basic tenants (ie; their tireless crusade against periodization based entirely on a strawman of what they think periodization is and the fact that they’ve been questioned multiple times about their inaccurate application of historical periods).
I’m not saying that it’s impossible to be a fantastic amateur historian. I’m not making an argument that only people who have been formally and academically trained in a subject are allowed to talk about it. I’m saying that MPOC deliberately misrepresents what formal academic history is so that it’s easy for them to dismiss criticism of their own methodology. I actually think they have the potential to be a p. decent history blog if just they would stop trying to position themselves as some sort of iconoclastic history Robin Hood.

Objectivity is a myth. We don’t suddenly stop being human when we start thinking about something! The problem is that there is a lack of openness, a lack of discussion, and a massive amount if bias that only goes one way. There is only one narrative, and no counternarrative. [3]

Provably untrue. There is no want for discussion and counter-narrative in academic historiography.
I agree that objectivity is a largely a myth, but MPOC does a dishonest double-whammy by insisting that because objectivity is objectively impossible, it’s pointless (and implicitly bigoted) to strive for it. They also use the “objectivity is a myth” defense to create a paradigm in which they can admit their bias while still positioning their scholarship as intrinsically more “truthy” than the “real historians” who criticize them because their bias is noble and progressive.

I’ve said time after time after TIME, THIS IS THE STUFF YOU DON’T. LEARN. IN. CLASSES. IF YOU WANT THE STUFF YOU LEARN IN CLASS, GO TO CLASS. AREN’T YOU LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND GET YOUR APPROVED TRUTHS IN THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENT. [4]

How many times do people who actually went to university for history have to tell MPOC that a lot of this stuff is commonly taught in their programs and, furthermore, most of it is historiography 101. Hell, I went to a tiny, local university not particularly known for it’s history department and my ‘Western Civilization 1000’ course was about the interconnected histories of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. We spent as long studying Ethiopia as we did the rise of Islam and the Reformation. Our textbooks were very common, widely taught academic readers used throughout North America and English-speaking Europe so it’s not like it was some kind of intentionally revisionist course or w/e.

Do any of you have any idea how amazing the concept of “we have created entirely new questions regarding ancient history/historiography” is????
We have proved that this level of discourse can be made accessible, and I’m pretty sure we all just leveled up. [5]

The discussion on MPOC is TOTALLY REVOLUTIONARY SCHOLARSHIP that would otherwise NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO LAYPEOPLE!!! AMAZING!!!! They are asking questions that have NEVER BEEN ASKED!!!!
MPOC claims from one side of their mouth that they don’t intend for their readers to take them as an authority and they welcome well-thought out criticism [6] while from the other side they insist that they are a source of information and perspective that is otherwise unrepresented in the academic world.
The blog is scholarship by a person who insists that traditional methodology is unimportant. MPOC also emphasizes the myth of “inaccessible” academia, adding to an atmosphere that discourages people from engaging with critical scholarship because it’s “elitist” and only for “rich white kids” despite the increasing efforts on the part of scholars from minority or oppressed groups to make scholarly readings available and inclusive.
LIKE THE ONES OP LINKED IN THEIR POST. GO CHECK THOSE OUT IF YOU’RE INTERESTED.
Zoom Info
cephiedvariable:

desidere:

MedievalPOC is scamming you, here’s how and why: 
For all that MedievalPOC railed against how “awful” periodization in this reblog, what they mostly did was prove they have ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT PERIODIZATION IS OR HOW IT WORKS. Which is okay! Not everyone does. But if you’re a history blog, trying to pass off Italian Baroque Art from the 1670’s as from the Georgian period is flat out wrong on every humanly possible level. How do I know it’s not Georgian, but Italian Baroque? Well, MPOC actually directly linked folks back to the original works and then bet NO ONE would check their facts. Talk about incriminating receipts, right? It’s a mistake anyone could make….except this is a history blog, and it’s not an easy mistake to make when you’re in the wrong CENTURY. The last photo is my accurate to period examples that i found quickly.  Periodization, by the way:  an act or instance of dividing a subject into historical eras for purposes of analysis and study. Periods are “named blocks of time” that can be geographically specific. They are often named for major historical events, famous people, or dates. Periods are useful for analyzing change, continuity, or advances over time. Examples: Meiji Japan, the Renaissance, the gilded age, the long 19th century, the 60’s.  
So MPOC hates historiography because its fluid/changing, different from art history in many ways, and not always precise — and therefore wrong. Then proceeds to prove their point by suggesting that the United States experienced the Victorian Era. Which, granted, the US did experience a multitude of influences from the “victorian era” but….it’s also no longer a part of the British empire in the 19th century. 
MPOC is asking people to pay them…..to break the law and/or do things that you can literally do yourself, for free or are already available for a price. IE: selling art prints of POC in art owned by different resources (museums, galleries, private owners, etc) is actually really illegal and against copyright. It’s technically illegal to put these images online without permissions anyways, but you don’t make a profit off of selling the art that isn’t owned by you when you do it. Interested in prints? Well you can either print off the image yourself for free,  or buy them from the actual museums and galleries themselves, furthering the support of the actual items! When you buy prints or postcards of art DIRECTLY from museums, you are funding museums. the money they get from giftshops is actually VERY IMPORTANT because museums and databases like the ones MPOC use are NON-PROFIT organizations AND this money will go to funding the museum, be that for outreach to children, conserving the art, paying their staff, publishing free educational materials, etc. It is an absolutely vital source of income for museums that serve their communities and want to keep their art accessible. There are a few collections which are free for reproduction commercially, like the National Gallery of Art but this isn’t the norm across the board. Besides that? Well I realize buying a $95 art book may be out of the range for some people’s pockets (TRUST ME: having been someone required to buy a lot of these textbooks which are pricey because of the vast amount of copyright fees paid to publish them), there are cheaper or used similar books on amazon AND several museums and universities have published some of their older books online for FREE. Which includes The Met. Why are you going to pay someone else to read books for you when they don’t even give you the facts right?? 
they want $1,200 a month to make lesson plans and curricula about art and art history but can’t even differentiate between two separate countries in two different time periods. This isn’t “one mistake” I found. This is systematically getting things wrong, including the time they claimed that Queen Urraca of Spain might possibly be Muslim — despite the fact that Queen Urraca of Spain spent her career helping and advocating the Reconquista - AKA the murder of muslim people in Spain. Uhhhh…Which of course: These lesson plans? Stuff like this already exists! By (surprise) Museum educators whose JOB it is full time to make this stuff. It’s almost like this stuff is ALREADY free online [The Met, The Getty, Asian Art Museum… pretty much any major museum on the planet….] AND THIS STUFF IS AVAILABLE AND READY TO BE USED. A LOT OF IT IS FREE. How do I know this magical stuff??? because (and I’m guessing here) UNLIKE MPOC I have actually taken a class on museum education. 
MPOC is offering to write a book. a really real published book. SPOILER ALERT: in the art history world, you GENERALLY have a PhD before you publish a book. Why? Because the PhD certifies you as an expert in the thing you study and it is an academic topic. No university/academic publisher alive would risk this. Is it maybe an ivory tower elitist thing? hell yeah it is. Would any editor in their right mind publish a book as riddled with basic factual errors as much as the MPOC blog? Hell no they would not. What about those publishers who publish psuedo-historical books like “PS ‘everything was made by aliens’” ? Well unless they want their asses sued to hell and back over copyrights, they probably won’t be able to foot the necessary bills for these images. Independent publishing doesn’t make any of it LESS illegal. They want to cover the license costs with crowd funding???  GREAT EXCEPT: According to Linda Downs, executive director of the College Art Association, image permissions and licensing costs for a 200-page art-history book average $7,000 to $10,000. Authors usually have to cover those costs themselves. Scholars in disciplines that aren’t so visual might jump at the chance to publish in both print and online formats, Ms. Downs told me in an e-mail. But “art historians will choose one or the other” because they might get hit with two sets of permissions fees and other restrictions. Good luck with that. In order to recoup those kinds of costs the books will NOT be cheap. 
MPOC has been called out by several NDN bloggers regarding the fact that they have been caught lying about their Native/POC heritage. Although the days of stupid_free and fandom_wank have long past, now we have other ways to collect receipts and here AND ALSO HERE REALLY IMPORTANT and know that they are white, white, white — and lied about who they were. Like here’s a hint there are NO Lakota reservations in AZ. If you really miss livejournal, however, you can see the call out on SF_DRAMA. The internet will never forget a white girl co-opting POC to garner cash.
they also have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of how to treat  jewish people in europe in history. which is called out here better than I ever can or could because I am not jewish. they also fumble with the Roma (which they claim to be) and that + the judaism issue is also called out here. 
don’t send this person harassment but don’t give them money holy shit y’all you are being scammed. SCAMMED. do not PAY people to feed you half-assed poor researched bullshit that is available free online. 
- a poc who is tired of the “best diversity in history” blog being wrong about pretty much everything 

What drives me nuts about MPOC is not just the fact that they present themselves as an authority on a subject that they have no learned expertise in. It’s that they present themselves as an authority not DESPITE having no expertise (which tbh I wouldn’t mind that much b/c at least it’s honest), but BECAUSE they have no expertise. They are part of a general trend on tumblr that asserts there is nothing valuable to be learned within the realm of post-secondary education, and the further outside traditional academics an individual is, the more trustworthy a source that individual becomes and the less their methods and words are questioned. It’s a form of reactionary anti-intellectualism and it’s also incredibly dishonest:

… self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals although pseudo-intellectualism is a more commonly… used description for this phenomenon.
In public discourse, anti-intellectuals are usually perceived and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk—populists against political elitism and academic elitism—proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education. [1] 

The reason it’s dishonest is because even though MPOC’s modus operandi is noble and a worthy pursuit of historical study, the blog is run with the attitude that it is a solitary example of progressivescholarship in a sea of rigid, racist academics who obviously don’t examine or re-asses their methodology. Because it’s not like there is an ENTIRE FIELD OF STUDY DEDICATED TO DOING JUST THAT.  MPOC likes to position themselves as an anti-establishment contrarian who is overturning dominant western myths that would NEVER EVER get questioned or discussed within the realms of actual academia. Just look at this shit they said recently when questioned about the veracity of wikipedia (emphasis mine):

"… the farther back you go, the fewer objects and documents that survive, so it becomes more open to individual interpretation.
And one of the problems there is that you get to a point where there are these interpretations that are considered beyond questioning or revising. It’s like, somewhere between “wicked rude” and “you’ll never get funding if you keep on like that”. As if revisiting primary sources is desecrating sacred ground; as if just kind of bypassing Mr. I Wrote The Book on It 300 Years Ago is equivalent to summoning the Elder Gods to consume civilization as we know it.
Which is why I do get messages from historians and “historians” like, “your methods are disgusting and unacceptable!!!” because yes, yes, I’m breaking the rules; yes, yes, I’m Doing It Wrong. I am a Bad Historian. I think this fails to take into account that I’ll go ahead and cite [that book]… but then I’ll have the brazen gall to disagree on the interpretation of that evidence.” [2]

They paint the academic study of history as inherently retrograde and incapable of self-reflection or change. In the atmosphere of debate MPOC creates, a “real historian” - the kind that frequently questions the methodology of MPOC - would NEVER have the “brazen gall” to question “Mr. I Wrote the Book 300 Years Ago” because the dominant western historical narrative is apparently sacrosanct. This is completely inaccurate, which MPOC would know if they had ever taken a single fucking history class in their entire lives, or even if they, you know, read the WIKIPEDIA PAGES for basic fucking things like the Annales School, E.H. Carr’s ‘What is History?’, Postcolonialism or Historical Revisionism. Hey, while we’re here, let’s check out the definition of that last one!!!!:

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.

Let’s repeat and emphasize that last sentence "CONSTANT REVISION OF HISTORY IS PART OF THE !!!NORMAL!!! SCHOLARLY PROCESS OF WRITING HISTORY”. Wow, it’s almost like MPOC’s insistence that academic historians “don’t question” secondary sources that “have been around long enough” is a completely bullshit statement designed to make their naive readers skeptical and distrustful of rigorous scholarship in order to give false authority to their own statements.
They don’t even explain coherently WHY they hate certain types of methodology and historiography, they simply react against them because if it’s part of the establishment it must be wrong and if the establishment is wrong, that means MPOC is the authority on the subject and if you question them, it’s because you’re narrow-minded. They spend a lot of time furiously debunking various forms of methodology and categorization as “irrelevant” seemingly because they’ve been called out on not understanding the basic tenants (ie; their tireless crusade against periodization based entirely on a strawman of what they think periodization is and the fact that they’ve been questioned multiple times about their inaccurate application of historical periods).
I’m not saying that it’s impossible to be a fantastic amateur historian. I’m not making an argument that only people who have been formally and academically trained in a subject are allowed to talk about it. I’m saying that MPOC deliberately misrepresents what formal academic history is so that it’s easy for them to dismiss criticism of their own methodology. I actually think they have the potential to be a p. decent history blog if just they would stop trying to position themselves as some sort of iconoclastic history Robin Hood.

Objectivity is a myth. We don’t suddenly stop being human when we start thinking about something! The problem is that there is a lack of openness, a lack of discussion, and a massive amount if bias that only goes one way. There is only one narrative, and no counternarrative. [3]

Provably untrue. There is no want for discussion and counter-narrative in academic historiography.
I agree that objectivity is a largely a myth, but MPOC does a dishonest double-whammy by insisting that because objectivity is objectively impossible, it’s pointless (and implicitly bigoted) to strive for it. They also use the “objectivity is a myth” defense to create a paradigm in which they can admit their bias while still positioning their scholarship as intrinsically more “truthy” than the “real historians” who criticize them because their bias is noble and progressive.

I’ve said time after time after TIME, THIS IS THE STUFF YOU DON’T. LEARN. IN. CLASSES. IF YOU WANT THE STUFF YOU LEARN IN CLASS, GO TO CLASS. AREN’T YOU LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND GET YOUR APPROVED TRUTHS IN THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENT. [4]

How many times do people who actually went to university for history have to tell MPOC that a lot of this stuff is commonly taught in their programs and, furthermore, most of it is historiography 101. Hell, I went to a tiny, local university not particularly known for it’s history department and my ‘Western Civilization 1000’ course was about the interconnected histories of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. We spent as long studying Ethiopia as we did the rise of Islam and the Reformation. Our textbooks were very common, widely taught academic readers used throughout North America and English-speaking Europe so it’s not like it was some kind of intentionally revisionist course or w/e.

Do any of you have any idea how amazing the concept of “we have created entirely new questions regarding ancient history/historiography” is????
We have proved that this level of discourse can be made accessible, and I’m pretty sure we all just leveled up. [5]

The discussion on MPOC is TOTALLY REVOLUTIONARY SCHOLARSHIP that would otherwise NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO LAYPEOPLE!!! AMAZING!!!! They are asking questions that have NEVER BEEN ASKED!!!!
MPOC claims from one side of their mouth that they don’t intend for their readers to take them as an authority and they welcome well-thought out criticism [6] while from the other side they insist that they are a source of information and perspective that is otherwise unrepresented in the academic world.
The blog is scholarship by a person who insists that traditional methodology is unimportant. MPOC also emphasizes the myth of “inaccessible” academia, adding to an atmosphere that discourages people from engaging with critical scholarship because it’s “elitist” and only for “rich white kids” despite the increasing efforts on the part of scholars from minority or oppressed groups to make scholarly readings available and inclusive.
LIKE THE ONES OP LINKED IN THEIR POST. GO CHECK THOSE OUT IF YOU’RE INTERESTED.
Zoom Info
cephiedvariable:

desidere:

MedievalPOC is scamming you, here’s how and why: 
For all that MedievalPOC railed against how “awful” periodization in this reblog, what they mostly did was prove they have ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT PERIODIZATION IS OR HOW IT WORKS. Which is okay! Not everyone does. But if you’re a history blog, trying to pass off Italian Baroque Art from the 1670’s as from the Georgian period is flat out wrong on every humanly possible level. How do I know it’s not Georgian, but Italian Baroque? Well, MPOC actually directly linked folks back to the original works and then bet NO ONE would check their facts. Talk about incriminating receipts, right? It’s a mistake anyone could make….except this is a history blog, and it’s not an easy mistake to make when you’re in the wrong CENTURY. The last photo is my accurate to period examples that i found quickly.  Periodization, by the way:  an act or instance of dividing a subject into historical eras for purposes of analysis and study. Periods are “named blocks of time” that can be geographically specific. They are often named for major historical events, famous people, or dates. Periods are useful for analyzing change, continuity, or advances over time. Examples: Meiji Japan, the Renaissance, the gilded age, the long 19th century, the 60’s.  
So MPOC hates historiography because its fluid/changing, different from art history in many ways, and not always precise — and therefore wrong. Then proceeds to prove their point by suggesting that the United States experienced the Victorian Era. Which, granted, the US did experience a multitude of influences from the “victorian era” but….it’s also no longer a part of the British empire in the 19th century. 
MPOC is asking people to pay them…..to break the law and/or do things that you can literally do yourself, for free or are already available for a price. IE: selling art prints of POC in art owned by different resources (museums, galleries, private owners, etc) is actually really illegal and against copyright. It’s technically illegal to put these images online without permissions anyways, but you don’t make a profit off of selling the art that isn’t owned by you when you do it. Interested in prints? Well you can either print off the image yourself for free,  or buy them from the actual museums and galleries themselves, furthering the support of the actual items! When you buy prints or postcards of art DIRECTLY from museums, you are funding museums. the money they get from giftshops is actually VERY IMPORTANT because museums and databases like the ones MPOC use are NON-PROFIT organizations AND this money will go to funding the museum, be that for outreach to children, conserving the art, paying their staff, publishing free educational materials, etc. It is an absolutely vital source of income for museums that serve their communities and want to keep their art accessible. There are a few collections which are free for reproduction commercially, like the National Gallery of Art but this isn’t the norm across the board. Besides that? Well I realize buying a $95 art book may be out of the range for some people’s pockets (TRUST ME: having been someone required to buy a lot of these textbooks which are pricey because of the vast amount of copyright fees paid to publish them), there are cheaper or used similar books on amazon AND several museums and universities have published some of their older books online for FREE. Which includes The Met. Why are you going to pay someone else to read books for you when they don’t even give you the facts right?? 
they want $1,200 a month to make lesson plans and curricula about art and art history but can’t even differentiate between two separate countries in two different time periods. This isn’t “one mistake” I found. This is systematically getting things wrong, including the time they claimed that Queen Urraca of Spain might possibly be Muslim — despite the fact that Queen Urraca of Spain spent her career helping and advocating the Reconquista - AKA the murder of muslim people in Spain. Uhhhh…Which of course: These lesson plans? Stuff like this already exists! By (surprise) Museum educators whose JOB it is full time to make this stuff. It’s almost like this stuff is ALREADY free online [The Met, The Getty, Asian Art Museum… pretty much any major museum on the planet….] AND THIS STUFF IS AVAILABLE AND READY TO BE USED. A LOT OF IT IS FREE. How do I know this magical stuff??? because (and I’m guessing here) UNLIKE MPOC I have actually taken a class on museum education. 
MPOC is offering to write a book. a really real published book. SPOILER ALERT: in the art history world, you GENERALLY have a PhD before you publish a book. Why? Because the PhD certifies you as an expert in the thing you study and it is an academic topic. No university/academic publisher alive would risk this. Is it maybe an ivory tower elitist thing? hell yeah it is. Would any editor in their right mind publish a book as riddled with basic factual errors as much as the MPOC blog? Hell no they would not. What about those publishers who publish psuedo-historical books like “PS ‘everything was made by aliens’” ? Well unless they want their asses sued to hell and back over copyrights, they probably won’t be able to foot the necessary bills for these images. Independent publishing doesn’t make any of it LESS illegal. They want to cover the license costs with crowd funding???  GREAT EXCEPT: According to Linda Downs, executive director of the College Art Association, image permissions and licensing costs for a 200-page art-history book average $7,000 to $10,000. Authors usually have to cover those costs themselves. Scholars in disciplines that aren’t so visual might jump at the chance to publish in both print and online formats, Ms. Downs told me in an e-mail. But “art historians will choose one or the other” because they might get hit with two sets of permissions fees and other restrictions. Good luck with that. In order to recoup those kinds of costs the books will NOT be cheap. 
MPOC has been called out by several NDN bloggers regarding the fact that they have been caught lying about their Native/POC heritage. Although the days of stupid_free and fandom_wank have long past, now we have other ways to collect receipts and here AND ALSO HERE REALLY IMPORTANT and know that they are white, white, white — and lied about who they were. Like here’s a hint there are NO Lakota reservations in AZ. If you really miss livejournal, however, you can see the call out on SF_DRAMA. The internet will never forget a white girl co-opting POC to garner cash.
they also have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of how to treat  jewish people in europe in history. which is called out here better than I ever can or could because I am not jewish. they also fumble with the Roma (which they claim to be) and that + the judaism issue is also called out here. 
don’t send this person harassment but don’t give them money holy shit y’all you are being scammed. SCAMMED. do not PAY people to feed you half-assed poor researched bullshit that is available free online. 
- a poc who is tired of the “best diversity in history” blog being wrong about pretty much everything 

What drives me nuts about MPOC is not just the fact that they present themselves as an authority on a subject that they have no learned expertise in. It’s that they present themselves as an authority not DESPITE having no expertise (which tbh I wouldn’t mind that much b/c at least it’s honest), but BECAUSE they have no expertise. They are part of a general trend on tumblr that asserts there is nothing valuable to be learned within the realm of post-secondary education, and the further outside traditional academics an individual is, the more trustworthy a source that individual becomes and the less their methods and words are questioned. It’s a form of reactionary anti-intellectualism and it’s also incredibly dishonest:

… self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals although pseudo-intellectualism is a more commonly… used description for this phenomenon.
In public discourse, anti-intellectuals are usually perceived and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk—populists against political elitism and academic elitism—proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education. [1] 

The reason it’s dishonest is because even though MPOC’s modus operandi is noble and a worthy pursuit of historical study, the blog is run with the attitude that it is a solitary example of progressivescholarship in a sea of rigid, racist academics who obviously don’t examine or re-asses their methodology. Because it’s not like there is an ENTIRE FIELD OF STUDY DEDICATED TO DOING JUST THAT.  MPOC likes to position themselves as an anti-establishment contrarian who is overturning dominant western myths that would NEVER EVER get questioned or discussed within the realms of actual academia. Just look at this shit they said recently when questioned about the veracity of wikipedia (emphasis mine):

"… the farther back you go, the fewer objects and documents that survive, so it becomes more open to individual interpretation.
And one of the problems there is that you get to a point where there are these interpretations that are considered beyond questioning or revising. It’s like, somewhere between “wicked rude” and “you’ll never get funding if you keep on like that”. As if revisiting primary sources is desecrating sacred ground; as if just kind of bypassing Mr. I Wrote The Book on It 300 Years Ago is equivalent to summoning the Elder Gods to consume civilization as we know it.
Which is why I do get messages from historians and “historians” like, “your methods are disgusting and unacceptable!!!” because yes, yes, I’m breaking the rules; yes, yes, I’m Doing It Wrong. I am a Bad Historian. I think this fails to take into account that I’ll go ahead and cite [that book]… but then I’ll have the brazen gall to disagree on the interpretation of that evidence.” [2]

They paint the academic study of history as inherently retrograde and incapable of self-reflection or change. In the atmosphere of debate MPOC creates, a “real historian” - the kind that frequently questions the methodology of MPOC - would NEVER have the “brazen gall” to question “Mr. I Wrote the Book 300 Years Ago” because the dominant western historical narrative is apparently sacrosanct. This is completely inaccurate, which MPOC would know if they had ever taken a single fucking history class in their entire lives, or even if they, you know, read the WIKIPEDIA PAGES for basic fucking things like the Annales School, E.H. Carr’s ‘What is History?’, Postcolonialism or Historical Revisionism. Hey, while we’re here, let’s check out the definition of that last one!!!!:

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.

Let’s repeat and emphasize that last sentence "CONSTANT REVISION OF HISTORY IS PART OF THE !!!NORMAL!!! SCHOLARLY PROCESS OF WRITING HISTORY”. Wow, it’s almost like MPOC’s insistence that academic historians “don’t question” secondary sources that “have been around long enough” is a completely bullshit statement designed to make their naive readers skeptical and distrustful of rigorous scholarship in order to give false authority to their own statements.
They don’t even explain coherently WHY they hate certain types of methodology and historiography, they simply react against them because if it’s part of the establishment it must be wrong and if the establishment is wrong, that means MPOC is the authority on the subject and if you question them, it’s because you’re narrow-minded. They spend a lot of time furiously debunking various forms of methodology and categorization as “irrelevant” seemingly because they’ve been called out on not understanding the basic tenants (ie; their tireless crusade against periodization based entirely on a strawman of what they think periodization is and the fact that they’ve been questioned multiple times about their inaccurate application of historical periods).
I’m not saying that it’s impossible to be a fantastic amateur historian. I’m not making an argument that only people who have been formally and academically trained in a subject are allowed to talk about it. I’m saying that MPOC deliberately misrepresents what formal academic history is so that it’s easy for them to dismiss criticism of their own methodology. I actually think they have the potential to be a p. decent history blog if just they would stop trying to position themselves as some sort of iconoclastic history Robin Hood.

Objectivity is a myth. We don’t suddenly stop being human when we start thinking about something! The problem is that there is a lack of openness, a lack of discussion, and a massive amount if bias that only goes one way. There is only one narrative, and no counternarrative. [3]

Provably untrue. There is no want for discussion and counter-narrative in academic historiography.
I agree that objectivity is a largely a myth, but MPOC does a dishonest double-whammy by insisting that because objectivity is objectively impossible, it’s pointless (and implicitly bigoted) to strive for it. They also use the “objectivity is a myth” defense to create a paradigm in which they can admit their bias while still positioning their scholarship as intrinsically more “truthy” than the “real historians” who criticize them because their bias is noble and progressive.

I’ve said time after time after TIME, THIS IS THE STUFF YOU DON’T. LEARN. IN. CLASSES. IF YOU WANT THE STUFF YOU LEARN IN CLASS, GO TO CLASS. AREN’T YOU LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND GET YOUR APPROVED TRUTHS IN THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENT. [4]

How many times do people who actually went to university for history have to tell MPOC that a lot of this stuff is commonly taught in their programs and, furthermore, most of it is historiography 101. Hell, I went to a tiny, local university not particularly known for it’s history department and my ‘Western Civilization 1000’ course was about the interconnected histories of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. We spent as long studying Ethiopia as we did the rise of Islam and the Reformation. Our textbooks were very common, widely taught academic readers used throughout North America and English-speaking Europe so it’s not like it was some kind of intentionally revisionist course or w/e.

Do any of you have any idea how amazing the concept of “we have created entirely new questions regarding ancient history/historiography” is????
We have proved that this level of discourse can be made accessible, and I’m pretty sure we all just leveled up. [5]

The discussion on MPOC is TOTALLY REVOLUTIONARY SCHOLARSHIP that would otherwise NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO LAYPEOPLE!!! AMAZING!!!! They are asking questions that have NEVER BEEN ASKED!!!!
MPOC claims from one side of their mouth that they don’t intend for their readers to take them as an authority and they welcome well-thought out criticism [6] while from the other side they insist that they are a source of information and perspective that is otherwise unrepresented in the academic world.
The blog is scholarship by a person who insists that traditional methodology is unimportant. MPOC also emphasizes the myth of “inaccessible” academia, adding to an atmosphere that discourages people from engaging with critical scholarship because it’s “elitist” and only for “rich white kids” despite the increasing efforts on the part of scholars from minority or oppressed groups to make scholarly readings available and inclusive.
LIKE THE ONES OP LINKED IN THEIR POST. GO CHECK THOSE OUT IF YOU’RE INTERESTED.
Zoom Info
cephiedvariable:

desidere:

MedievalPOC is scamming you, here’s how and why: 
For all that MedievalPOC railed against how “awful” periodization in this reblog, what they mostly did was prove they have ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT PERIODIZATION IS OR HOW IT WORKS. Which is okay! Not everyone does. But if you’re a history blog, trying to pass off Italian Baroque Art from the 1670’s as from the Georgian period is flat out wrong on every humanly possible level. How do I know it’s not Georgian, but Italian Baroque? Well, MPOC actually directly linked folks back to the original works and then bet NO ONE would check their facts. Talk about incriminating receipts, right? It’s a mistake anyone could make….except this is a history blog, and it’s not an easy mistake to make when you’re in the wrong CENTURY. The last photo is my accurate to period examples that i found quickly.  Periodization, by the way:  an act or instance of dividing a subject into historical eras for purposes of analysis and study. Periods are “named blocks of time” that can be geographically specific. They are often named for major historical events, famous people, or dates. Periods are useful for analyzing change, continuity, or advances over time. Examples: Meiji Japan, the Renaissance, the gilded age, the long 19th century, the 60’s.  
So MPOC hates historiography because its fluid/changing, different from art history in many ways, and not always precise — and therefore wrong. Then proceeds to prove their point by suggesting that the United States experienced the Victorian Era. Which, granted, the US did experience a multitude of influences from the “victorian era” but….it’s also no longer a part of the British empire in the 19th century. 
MPOC is asking people to pay them…..to break the law and/or do things that you can literally do yourself, for free or are already available for a price. IE: selling art prints of POC in art owned by different resources (museums, galleries, private owners, etc) is actually really illegal and against copyright. It’s technically illegal to put these images online without permissions anyways, but you don’t make a profit off of selling the art that isn’t owned by you when you do it. Interested in prints? Well you can either print off the image yourself for free,  or buy them from the actual museums and galleries themselves, furthering the support of the actual items! When you buy prints or postcards of art DIRECTLY from museums, you are funding museums. the money they get from giftshops is actually VERY IMPORTANT because museums and databases like the ones MPOC use are NON-PROFIT organizations AND this money will go to funding the museum, be that for outreach to children, conserving the art, paying their staff, publishing free educational materials, etc. It is an absolutely vital source of income for museums that serve their communities and want to keep their art accessible. There are a few collections which are free for reproduction commercially, like the National Gallery of Art but this isn’t the norm across the board. Besides that? Well I realize buying a $95 art book may be out of the range for some people’s pockets (TRUST ME: having been someone required to buy a lot of these textbooks which are pricey because of the vast amount of copyright fees paid to publish them), there are cheaper or used similar books on amazon AND several museums and universities have published some of their older books online for FREE. Which includes The Met. Why are you going to pay someone else to read books for you when they don’t even give you the facts right?? 
they want $1,200 a month to make lesson plans and curricula about art and art history but can’t even differentiate between two separate countries in two different time periods. This isn’t “one mistake” I found. This is systematically getting things wrong, including the time they claimed that Queen Urraca of Spain might possibly be Muslim — despite the fact that Queen Urraca of Spain spent her career helping and advocating the Reconquista - AKA the murder of muslim people in Spain. Uhhhh…Which of course: These lesson plans? Stuff like this already exists! By (surprise) Museum educators whose JOB it is full time to make this stuff. It’s almost like this stuff is ALREADY free online [The Met, The Getty, Asian Art Museum… pretty much any major museum on the planet….] AND THIS STUFF IS AVAILABLE AND READY TO BE USED. A LOT OF IT IS FREE. How do I know this magical stuff??? because (and I’m guessing here) UNLIKE MPOC I have actually taken a class on museum education. 
MPOC is offering to write a book. a really real published book. SPOILER ALERT: in the art history world, you GENERALLY have a PhD before you publish a book. Why? Because the PhD certifies you as an expert in the thing you study and it is an academic topic. No university/academic publisher alive would risk this. Is it maybe an ivory tower elitist thing? hell yeah it is. Would any editor in their right mind publish a book as riddled with basic factual errors as much as the MPOC blog? Hell no they would not. What about those publishers who publish psuedo-historical books like “PS ‘everything was made by aliens’” ? Well unless they want their asses sued to hell and back over copyrights, they probably won’t be able to foot the necessary bills for these images. Independent publishing doesn’t make any of it LESS illegal. They want to cover the license costs with crowd funding???  GREAT EXCEPT: According to Linda Downs, executive director of the College Art Association, image permissions and licensing costs for a 200-page art-history book average $7,000 to $10,000. Authors usually have to cover those costs themselves. Scholars in disciplines that aren’t so visual might jump at the chance to publish in both print and online formats, Ms. Downs told me in an e-mail. But “art historians will choose one or the other” because they might get hit with two sets of permissions fees and other restrictions. Good luck with that. In order to recoup those kinds of costs the books will NOT be cheap. 
MPOC has been called out by several NDN bloggers regarding the fact that they have been caught lying about their Native/POC heritage. Although the days of stupid_free and fandom_wank have long past, now we have other ways to collect receipts and here AND ALSO HERE REALLY IMPORTANT and know that they are white, white, white — and lied about who they were. Like here’s a hint there are NO Lakota reservations in AZ. If you really miss livejournal, however, you can see the call out on SF_DRAMA. The internet will never forget a white girl co-opting POC to garner cash.
they also have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of how to treat  jewish people in europe in history. which is called out here better than I ever can or could because I am not jewish. they also fumble with the Roma (which they claim to be) and that + the judaism issue is also called out here. 
don’t send this person harassment but don’t give them money holy shit y’all you are being scammed. SCAMMED. do not PAY people to feed you half-assed poor researched bullshit that is available free online. 
- a poc who is tired of the “best diversity in history” blog being wrong about pretty much everything 

What drives me nuts about MPOC is not just the fact that they present themselves as an authority on a subject that they have no learned expertise in. It’s that they present themselves as an authority not DESPITE having no expertise (which tbh I wouldn’t mind that much b/c at least it’s honest), but BECAUSE they have no expertise. They are part of a general trend on tumblr that asserts there is nothing valuable to be learned within the realm of post-secondary education, and the further outside traditional academics an individual is, the more trustworthy a source that individual becomes and the less their methods and words are questioned. It’s a form of reactionary anti-intellectualism and it’s also incredibly dishonest:

… self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals although pseudo-intellectualism is a more commonly… used description for this phenomenon.
In public discourse, anti-intellectuals are usually perceived and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk—populists against political elitism and academic elitism—proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education. [1] 

The reason it’s dishonest is because even though MPOC’s modus operandi is noble and a worthy pursuit of historical study, the blog is run with the attitude that it is a solitary example of progressivescholarship in a sea of rigid, racist academics who obviously don’t examine or re-asses their methodology. Because it’s not like there is an ENTIRE FIELD OF STUDY DEDICATED TO DOING JUST THAT.  MPOC likes to position themselves as an anti-establishment contrarian who is overturning dominant western myths that would NEVER EVER get questioned or discussed within the realms of actual academia. Just look at this shit they said recently when questioned about the veracity of wikipedia (emphasis mine):

"… the farther back you go, the fewer objects and documents that survive, so it becomes more open to individual interpretation.
And one of the problems there is that you get to a point where there are these interpretations that are considered beyond questioning or revising. It’s like, somewhere between “wicked rude” and “you’ll never get funding if you keep on like that”. As if revisiting primary sources is desecrating sacred ground; as if just kind of bypassing Mr. I Wrote The Book on It 300 Years Ago is equivalent to summoning the Elder Gods to consume civilization as we know it.
Which is why I do get messages from historians and “historians” like, “your methods are disgusting and unacceptable!!!” because yes, yes, I’m breaking the rules; yes, yes, I’m Doing It Wrong. I am a Bad Historian. I think this fails to take into account that I’ll go ahead and cite [that book]… but then I’ll have the brazen gall to disagree on the interpretation of that evidence.” [2]

They paint the academic study of history as inherently retrograde and incapable of self-reflection or change. In the atmosphere of debate MPOC creates, a “real historian” - the kind that frequently questions the methodology of MPOC - would NEVER have the “brazen gall” to question “Mr. I Wrote the Book 300 Years Ago” because the dominant western historical narrative is apparently sacrosanct. This is completely inaccurate, which MPOC would know if they had ever taken a single fucking history class in their entire lives, or even if they, you know, read the WIKIPEDIA PAGES for basic fucking things like the Annales School, E.H. Carr’s ‘What is History?’, Postcolonialism or Historical Revisionism. Hey, while we’re here, let’s check out the definition of that last one!!!!:

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.

Let’s repeat and emphasize that last sentence "CONSTANT REVISION OF HISTORY IS PART OF THE !!!NORMAL!!! SCHOLARLY PROCESS OF WRITING HISTORY”. Wow, it’s almost like MPOC’s insistence that academic historians “don’t question” secondary sources that “have been around long enough” is a completely bullshit statement designed to make their naive readers skeptical and distrustful of rigorous scholarship in order to give false authority to their own statements.
They don’t even explain coherently WHY they hate certain types of methodology and historiography, they simply react against them because if it’s part of the establishment it must be wrong and if the establishment is wrong, that means MPOC is the authority on the subject and if you question them, it’s because you’re narrow-minded. They spend a lot of time furiously debunking various forms of methodology and categorization as “irrelevant” seemingly because they’ve been called out on not understanding the basic tenants (ie; their tireless crusade against periodization based entirely on a strawman of what they think periodization is and the fact that they’ve been questioned multiple times about their inaccurate application of historical periods).
I’m not saying that it’s impossible to be a fantastic amateur historian. I’m not making an argument that only people who have been formally and academically trained in a subject are allowed to talk about it. I’m saying that MPOC deliberately misrepresents what formal academic history is so that it’s easy for them to dismiss criticism of their own methodology. I actually think they have the potential to be a p. decent history blog if just they would stop trying to position themselves as some sort of iconoclastic history Robin Hood.

Objectivity is a myth. We don’t suddenly stop being human when we start thinking about something! The problem is that there is a lack of openness, a lack of discussion, and a massive amount if bias that only goes one way. There is only one narrative, and no counternarrative. [3]

Provably untrue. There is no want for discussion and counter-narrative in academic historiography.
I agree that objectivity is a largely a myth, but MPOC does a dishonest double-whammy by insisting that because objectivity is objectively impossible, it’s pointless (and implicitly bigoted) to strive for it. They also use the “objectivity is a myth” defense to create a paradigm in which they can admit their bias while still positioning their scholarship as intrinsically more “truthy” than the “real historians” who criticize them because their bias is noble and progressive.

I’ve said time after time after TIME, THIS IS THE STUFF YOU DON’T. LEARN. IN. CLASSES. IF YOU WANT THE STUFF YOU LEARN IN CLASS, GO TO CLASS. AREN’T YOU LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND GET YOUR APPROVED TRUTHS IN THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENT. [4]

How many times do people who actually went to university for history have to tell MPOC that a lot of this stuff is commonly taught in their programs and, furthermore, most of it is historiography 101. Hell, I went to a tiny, local university not particularly known for it’s history department and my ‘Western Civilization 1000’ course was about the interconnected histories of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. We spent as long studying Ethiopia as we did the rise of Islam and the Reformation. Our textbooks were very common, widely taught academic readers used throughout North America and English-speaking Europe so it’s not like it was some kind of intentionally revisionist course or w/e.

Do any of you have any idea how amazing the concept of “we have created entirely new questions regarding ancient history/historiography” is????
We have proved that this level of discourse can be made accessible, and I’m pretty sure we all just leveled up. [5]

The discussion on MPOC is TOTALLY REVOLUTIONARY SCHOLARSHIP that would otherwise NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO LAYPEOPLE!!! AMAZING!!!! They are asking questions that have NEVER BEEN ASKED!!!!
MPOC claims from one side of their mouth that they don’t intend for their readers to take them as an authority and they welcome well-thought out criticism [6] while from the other side they insist that they are a source of information and perspective that is otherwise unrepresented in the academic world.
The blog is scholarship by a person who insists that traditional methodology is unimportant. MPOC also emphasizes the myth of “inaccessible” academia, adding to an atmosphere that discourages people from engaging with critical scholarship because it’s “elitist” and only for “rich white kids” despite the increasing efforts on the part of scholars from minority or oppressed groups to make scholarly readings available and inclusive.
LIKE THE ONES OP LINKED IN THEIR POST. GO CHECK THOSE OUT IF YOU’RE INTERESTED.
Zoom Info
cephiedvariable:

desidere:

MedievalPOC is scamming you, here’s how and why: 
For all that MedievalPOC railed against how “awful” periodization in this reblog, what they mostly did was prove they have ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT PERIODIZATION IS OR HOW IT WORKS. Which is okay! Not everyone does. But if you’re a history blog, trying to pass off Italian Baroque Art from the 1670’s as from the Georgian period is flat out wrong on every humanly possible level. How do I know it’s not Georgian, but Italian Baroque? Well, MPOC actually directly linked folks back to the original works and then bet NO ONE would check their facts. Talk about incriminating receipts, right? It’s a mistake anyone could make….except this is a history blog, and it’s not an easy mistake to make when you’re in the wrong CENTURY. The last photo is my accurate to period examples that i found quickly.  Periodization, by the way:  an act or instance of dividing a subject into historical eras for purposes of analysis and study. Periods are “named blocks of time” that can be geographically specific. They are often named for major historical events, famous people, or dates. Periods are useful for analyzing change, continuity, or advances over time. Examples: Meiji Japan, the Renaissance, the gilded age, the long 19th century, the 60’s.  
So MPOC hates historiography because its fluid/changing, different from art history in many ways, and not always precise — and therefore wrong. Then proceeds to prove their point by suggesting that the United States experienced the Victorian Era. Which, granted, the US did experience a multitude of influences from the “victorian era” but….it’s also no longer a part of the British empire in the 19th century. 
MPOC is asking people to pay them…..to break the law and/or do things that you can literally do yourself, for free or are already available for a price. IE: selling art prints of POC in art owned by different resources (museums, galleries, private owners, etc) is actually really illegal and against copyright. It’s technically illegal to put these images online without permissions anyways, but you don’t make a profit off of selling the art that isn’t owned by you when you do it. Interested in prints? Well you can either print off the image yourself for free,  or buy them from the actual museums and galleries themselves, furthering the support of the actual items! When you buy prints or postcards of art DIRECTLY from museums, you are funding museums. the money they get from giftshops is actually VERY IMPORTANT because museums and databases like the ones MPOC use are NON-PROFIT organizations AND this money will go to funding the museum, be that for outreach to children, conserving the art, paying their staff, publishing free educational materials, etc. It is an absolutely vital source of income for museums that serve their communities and want to keep their art accessible. There are a few collections which are free for reproduction commercially, like the National Gallery of Art but this isn’t the norm across the board. Besides that? Well I realize buying a $95 art book may be out of the range for some people’s pockets (TRUST ME: having been someone required to buy a lot of these textbooks which are pricey because of the vast amount of copyright fees paid to publish them), there are cheaper or used similar books on amazon AND several museums and universities have published some of their older books online for FREE. Which includes The Met. Why are you going to pay someone else to read books for you when they don’t even give you the facts right?? 
they want $1,200 a month to make lesson plans and curricula about art and art history but can’t even differentiate between two separate countries in two different time periods. This isn’t “one mistake” I found. This is systematically getting things wrong, including the time they claimed that Queen Urraca of Spain might possibly be Muslim — despite the fact that Queen Urraca of Spain spent her career helping and advocating the Reconquista - AKA the murder of muslim people in Spain. Uhhhh…Which of course: These lesson plans? Stuff like this already exists! By (surprise) Museum educators whose JOB it is full time to make this stuff. It’s almost like this stuff is ALREADY free online [The Met, The Getty, Asian Art Museum… pretty much any major museum on the planet….] AND THIS STUFF IS AVAILABLE AND READY TO BE USED. A LOT OF IT IS FREE. How do I know this magical stuff??? because (and I’m guessing here) UNLIKE MPOC I have actually taken a class on museum education. 
MPOC is offering to write a book. a really real published book. SPOILER ALERT: in the art history world, you GENERALLY have a PhD before you publish a book. Why? Because the PhD certifies you as an expert in the thing you study and it is an academic topic. No university/academic publisher alive would risk this. Is it maybe an ivory tower elitist thing? hell yeah it is. Would any editor in their right mind publish a book as riddled with basic factual errors as much as the MPOC blog? Hell no they would not. What about those publishers who publish psuedo-historical books like “PS ‘everything was made by aliens’” ? Well unless they want their asses sued to hell and back over copyrights, they probably won’t be able to foot the necessary bills for these images. Independent publishing doesn’t make any of it LESS illegal. They want to cover the license costs with crowd funding???  GREAT EXCEPT: According to Linda Downs, executive director of the College Art Association, image permissions and licensing costs for a 200-page art-history book average $7,000 to $10,000. Authors usually have to cover those costs themselves. Scholars in disciplines that aren’t so visual might jump at the chance to publish in both print and online formats, Ms. Downs told me in an e-mail. But “art historians will choose one or the other” because they might get hit with two sets of permissions fees and other restrictions. Good luck with that. In order to recoup those kinds of costs the books will NOT be cheap. 
MPOC has been called out by several NDN bloggers regarding the fact that they have been caught lying about their Native/POC heritage. Although the days of stupid_free and fandom_wank have long past, now we have other ways to collect receipts and here AND ALSO HERE REALLY IMPORTANT and know that they are white, white, white — and lied about who they were. Like here’s a hint there are NO Lakota reservations in AZ. If you really miss livejournal, however, you can see the call out on SF_DRAMA. The internet will never forget a white girl co-opting POC to garner cash.
they also have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of how to treat  jewish people in europe in history. which is called out here better than I ever can or could because I am not jewish. they also fumble with the Roma (which they claim to be) and that + the judaism issue is also called out here. 
don’t send this person harassment but don’t give them money holy shit y’all you are being scammed. SCAMMED. do not PAY people to feed you half-assed poor researched bullshit that is available free online. 
- a poc who is tired of the “best diversity in history” blog being wrong about pretty much everything 

What drives me nuts about MPOC is not just the fact that they present themselves as an authority on a subject that they have no learned expertise in. It’s that they present themselves as an authority not DESPITE having no expertise (which tbh I wouldn’t mind that much b/c at least it’s honest), but BECAUSE they have no expertise. They are part of a general trend on tumblr that asserts there is nothing valuable to be learned within the realm of post-secondary education, and the further outside traditional academics an individual is, the more trustworthy a source that individual becomes and the less their methods and words are questioned. It’s a form of reactionary anti-intellectualism and it’s also incredibly dishonest:

… self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals although pseudo-intellectualism is a more commonly… used description for this phenomenon.
In public discourse, anti-intellectuals are usually perceived and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk—populists against political elitism and academic elitism—proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education. [1] 

The reason it’s dishonest is because even though MPOC’s modus operandi is noble and a worthy pursuit of historical study, the blog is run with the attitude that it is a solitary example of progressivescholarship in a sea of rigid, racist academics who obviously don’t examine or re-asses their methodology. Because it’s not like there is an ENTIRE FIELD OF STUDY DEDICATED TO DOING JUST THAT.  MPOC likes to position themselves as an anti-establishment contrarian who is overturning dominant western myths that would NEVER EVER get questioned or discussed within the realms of actual academia. Just look at this shit they said recently when questioned about the veracity of wikipedia (emphasis mine):

"… the farther back you go, the fewer objects and documents that survive, so it becomes more open to individual interpretation.
And one of the problems there is that you get to a point where there are these interpretations that are considered beyond questioning or revising. It’s like, somewhere between “wicked rude” and “you’ll never get funding if you keep on like that”. As if revisiting primary sources is desecrating sacred ground; as if just kind of bypassing Mr. I Wrote The Book on It 300 Years Ago is equivalent to summoning the Elder Gods to consume civilization as we know it.
Which is why I do get messages from historians and “historians” like, “your methods are disgusting and unacceptable!!!” because yes, yes, I’m breaking the rules; yes, yes, I’m Doing It Wrong. I am a Bad Historian. I think this fails to take into account that I’ll go ahead and cite [that book]… but then I’ll have the brazen gall to disagree on the interpretation of that evidence.” [2]

They paint the academic study of history as inherently retrograde and incapable of self-reflection or change. In the atmosphere of debate MPOC creates, a “real historian” - the kind that frequently questions the methodology of MPOC - would NEVER have the “brazen gall” to question “Mr. I Wrote the Book 300 Years Ago” because the dominant western historical narrative is apparently sacrosanct. This is completely inaccurate, which MPOC would know if they had ever taken a single fucking history class in their entire lives, or even if they, you know, read the WIKIPEDIA PAGES for basic fucking things like the Annales School, E.H. Carr’s ‘What is History?’, Postcolonialism or Historical Revisionism. Hey, while we’re here, let’s check out the definition of that last one!!!!:

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.

Let’s repeat and emphasize that last sentence "CONSTANT REVISION OF HISTORY IS PART OF THE !!!NORMAL!!! SCHOLARLY PROCESS OF WRITING HISTORY”. Wow, it’s almost like MPOC’s insistence that academic historians “don’t question” secondary sources that “have been around long enough” is a completely bullshit statement designed to make their naive readers skeptical and distrustful of rigorous scholarship in order to give false authority to their own statements.
They don’t even explain coherently WHY they hate certain types of methodology and historiography, they simply react against them because if it’s part of the establishment it must be wrong and if the establishment is wrong, that means MPOC is the authority on the subject and if you question them, it’s because you’re narrow-minded. They spend a lot of time furiously debunking various forms of methodology and categorization as “irrelevant” seemingly because they’ve been called out on not understanding the basic tenants (ie; their tireless crusade against periodization based entirely on a strawman of what they think periodization is and the fact that they’ve been questioned multiple times about their inaccurate application of historical periods).
I’m not saying that it’s impossible to be a fantastic amateur historian. I’m not making an argument that only people who have been formally and academically trained in a subject are allowed to talk about it. I’m saying that MPOC deliberately misrepresents what formal academic history is so that it’s easy for them to dismiss criticism of their own methodology. I actually think they have the potential to be a p. decent history blog if just they would stop trying to position themselves as some sort of iconoclastic history Robin Hood.

Objectivity is a myth. We don’t suddenly stop being human when we start thinking about something! The problem is that there is a lack of openness, a lack of discussion, and a massive amount if bias that only goes one way. There is only one narrative, and no counternarrative. [3]

Provably untrue. There is no want for discussion and counter-narrative in academic historiography.
I agree that objectivity is a largely a myth, but MPOC does a dishonest double-whammy by insisting that because objectivity is objectively impossible, it’s pointless (and implicitly bigoted) to strive for it. They also use the “objectivity is a myth” defense to create a paradigm in which they can admit their bias while still positioning their scholarship as intrinsically more “truthy” than the “real historians” who criticize them because their bias is noble and progressive.

I’ve said time after time after TIME, THIS IS THE STUFF YOU DON’T. LEARN. IN. CLASSES. IF YOU WANT THE STUFF YOU LEARN IN CLASS, GO TO CLASS. AREN’T YOU LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND GET YOUR APPROVED TRUTHS IN THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENT. [4]

How many times do people who actually went to university for history have to tell MPOC that a lot of this stuff is commonly taught in their programs and, furthermore, most of it is historiography 101. Hell, I went to a tiny, local university not particularly known for it’s history department and my ‘Western Civilization 1000’ course was about the interconnected histories of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. We spent as long studying Ethiopia as we did the rise of Islam and the Reformation. Our textbooks were very common, widely taught academic readers used throughout North America and English-speaking Europe so it’s not like it was some kind of intentionally revisionist course or w/e.

Do any of you have any idea how amazing the concept of “we have created entirely new questions regarding ancient history/historiography” is????
We have proved that this level of discourse can be made accessible, and I’m pretty sure we all just leveled up. [5]

The discussion on MPOC is TOTALLY REVOLUTIONARY SCHOLARSHIP that would otherwise NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO LAYPEOPLE!!! AMAZING!!!! They are asking questions that have NEVER BEEN ASKED!!!!
MPOC claims from one side of their mouth that they don’t intend for their readers to take them as an authority and they welcome well-thought out criticism [6] while from the other side they insist that they are a source of information and perspective that is otherwise unrepresented in the academic world.
The blog is scholarship by a person who insists that traditional methodology is unimportant. MPOC also emphasizes the myth of “inaccessible” academia, adding to an atmosphere that discourages people from engaging with critical scholarship because it’s “elitist” and only for “rich white kids” despite the increasing efforts on the part of scholars from minority or oppressed groups to make scholarly readings available and inclusive.
LIKE THE ONES OP LINKED IN THEIR POST. GO CHECK THOSE OUT IF YOU’RE INTERESTED.
Zoom Info

cephiedvariable:

desidere:

MedievalPOC is scamming you, here’s how and why: 

  1. For all that MedievalPOC railed against how “awful” periodization in this reblog, what they mostly did was prove they have ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT PERIODIZATION IS OR HOW IT WORKS. 

    Which is okay! Not everyone does. But if you’re a history blog, trying to pass off Italian Baroque Art from the 1670’s as from the Georgian period is flat out wrong on every humanly possible level. How do I know it’s not Georgian, but Italian Baroque? Well, MPOC actually directly linked folks back to the original works and then bet NO ONE would check their facts

    Talk about incriminating receipts, right? It’s a mistake anyone could make….except this is a history blog, and it’s not an easy mistake to make when you’re in the wrong CENTURY. The last photo is my accurate to period examples that i found quickly.  

    Periodization, by the way:  an act or instance of dividing a subject into historical eras for purposes of analysis and study. Periods are “named blocks of time” that can be geographically specific. They are often named for major historical events, famous people, or dates. Periods are useful for analyzing change, continuity, or advances over time. Examples: Meiji Japan, the Renaissance, the gilded age, the long 19th century, the 60’s.  


  2. So MPOC hates historiography because its fluid/changing, different from art history in many ways, and not always precise — and therefore wrong. Then proceeds to prove their point by suggesting that the United States experienced the Victorian Era. 

    Which, granted, the US did experience a multitude of influences from the “victorian era” but….it’s also no longer a part of the British empire in the 19th century. 
  3. MPOC is asking people to pay them…..to break the law and/or do things that you can literally do yourself, for free or are already available for a price. IE: selling art prints of POC in art owned by different resources (museums, galleries, private owners, etc) is actually really illegal and against copyright. It’s technically illegal to put these images online without permissions anyways, but you don’t make a profit off of selling the art that isn’t owned by you when you do it. Interested in prints? Well you can either print off the image yourself for free,  or buy them from the actual museums and galleries themselves, furthering the support of the actual items! When you buy prints or postcards of art DIRECTLY from museums, you are funding museums. the money they get from giftshops is actually VERY IMPORTANT because museums and databases like the ones MPOC use are NON-PROFIT organizations AND this money will go to funding the museum, be that for outreach to children, conserving the art, paying their staff, publishing free educational materials, etc. It is an absolutely vital source of income for museums that serve their communities and want to keep their art accessible. 

    There are a few collections which are free for reproduction commercially, like the National Gallery of Art but this isn’t the norm across the board. Besides that? Well I realize buying a $95 art book may be out of the range for some people’s pockets (TRUST ME: having been someone required to buy a lot of these textbooks which are pricey because of the vast amount of copyright fees paid to publish them), there are cheaper or used similar books on amazon AND several museums and universities have published some of their older books online for FREE. Which includes The Met. Why are you going to pay someone else to read books for you when they don’t even give you the facts right?? 
  4. they want $1,200 a month to make lesson plans and curricula about art and art history but can’t even differentiate between two separate countries in two different time periods. This isn’t “one mistake” I found. This is systematically getting things wrong, including the time they claimed that Queen Urraca of Spain might possibly be Muslim — despite the fact that Queen Urraca of Spain spent her career helping and advocating the Reconquista - AKA the murder of muslim people in Spain. Uhhhh…

    Which of course: These lesson plans? Stuff like this already exists! By (surprise) Museum educators whose JOB it is full time to make this stuff. It’s almost like this stuff is ALREADY free online [The Met, The Getty, Asian Art Museum… pretty much any major museum on the planet….] AND THIS STUFF IS AVAILABLE AND READY TO BE USED. A LOT OF IT IS FREE. How do I know this magical stuff??? because (and I’m guessing here) UNLIKE MPOC I have actually taken a class on museum education. 
  5. MPOC is offering to write a book. a really real published book. SPOILER ALERT: in the art history world, you GENERALLY have a PhD before you publish a book. Why? Because the PhD certifies you as an expert in the thing you study and it is an academic topic. No university/academic publisher alive would risk this. Is it maybe an ivory tower elitist thing? hell yeah it is. Would any editor in their right mind publish a book as riddled with basic factual errors as much as the MPOC blog? Hell no they would not. What about those publishers who publish psuedo-historical books like “PS ‘everything was made by aliens’” ? Well unless they want their asses sued to hell and back over copyrights, they probably won’t be able to foot the necessary bills for these images. Independent publishing doesn’t make any of it LESS illegal. They want to cover the license costs with crowd funding???  

    GREAT EXCEPT: 

    According to Linda Downs, executive director of the College Art Association, image permissions and licensing costs for a 200-page art-history book average $7,000 to $10,000. Authors usually have to cover those costs themselves. Scholars in disciplines that aren’t so visual might jump at the chance to publish in both print and online formats, Ms. Downs told me in an e-mail. But “art historians will choose one or the other” because they might get hit with two sets of permissions fees and other restrictions. Good luck with that. In order to recoup those kinds of costs the books will NOT be cheap. 
  6. MPOC has been called out by several NDN bloggers regarding the fact that they have been caught lying about their Native/POC heritage. Although the days of stupid_free and fandom_wank have long past, now we have other ways to collect receipts and here AND ALSO HERE REALLY IMPORTANT and know that they are white, white, white — and lied about who they were. Like here’s a hint there are NO Lakota reservations in AZ. If you really miss livejournal, however, you can see the call out on SF_DRAMAThe internet will never forget a white girl co-opting POC to garner cash.
  7. they also have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of how to treat  jewish people in europe in history. which is called out here better than I ever can or could because I am not jewish. they also fumble with the Roma (which they claim to be) and that + the judaism issue is also called out here
  8. don’t send this person harassment but don’t give them money holy shit y’all you are being scammed. SCAMMED. do not PAY people to feed you half-assed poor researched bullshit that is available free online. 

- a poc who is tired of the “best diversity in history” blog being wrong about pretty much everything 

What drives me nuts about MPOC is not just the fact that they present themselves as an authority on a subject that they have no learned expertise in. It’s that they present themselves as an authority not DESPITE having no expertise (which tbh I wouldn’t mind that much b/c at least it’s honest), but BECAUSE they have no expertise. They are part of a general trend on tumblr that asserts there is nothing valuable to be learned within the realm of post-secondary education, and the further outside traditional academics an individual is, the more trustworthy a source that individual becomes and the less their methods and words are questioned. It’s a form of reactionary anti-intellectualism and it’s also incredibly dishonest:

… self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals although pseudo-intellectualism is a more commonly… used description for this phenomenon.

In public discourse, anti-intellectuals are usually perceived and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk—populists against political elitism and academic elitism—proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education. [1

The reason it’s dishonest is because even though MPOC’s modus operandi is noble and a worthy pursuit of historical study, the blog is run with the attitude that it is a solitary example of progressivescholarship in a sea of rigid, racist academics who obviously don’t examine or re-asses their methodology. Because it’s not like there is an ENTIRE FIELD OF STUDY DEDICATED TO DOING JUST THAT.  MPOC likes to position themselves as an anti-establishment contrarian who is overturning dominant western myths that would NEVER EVER get questioned or discussed within the realms of actual academia. Just look at this shit they said recently when questioned about the veracity of wikipedia (emphasis mine):

"… the farther back you go, the fewer objects and documents that survive, so it becomes more open to individual interpretation.

And one of the problems there is that you get to a point where there are these interpretations that are considered beyond questioning or revising. It’s like, somewhere between “wicked rude” and “you’ll never get funding if you keep on like that”. As if revisiting primary sources is desecrating sacred ground; as if just kind of bypassing Mr. I Wrote The Book on It 300 Years Ago is equivalent to summoning the Elder Gods to consume civilization as we know it.

Which is why I do get messages from historians and “historians” like, “your methods are disgusting and unacceptable!!!” because yes, yes, I’m breaking the rules; yes, yes, I’m Doing It Wrong. I am a Bad Historian. I think this fails to take into account that I’ll go ahead and cite [that book]… but then I’ll have the brazen gall to disagree on the interpretation of that evidence. [2]

They paint the academic study of history as inherently retrograde and incapable of self-reflection or change. In the atmosphere of debate MPOC creates, a “real historian” - the kind that frequently questions the methodology of MPOC - would NEVER have the “brazen gall” to question “Mr. I Wrote the Book 300 Years Ago” because the dominant western historical narrative is apparently sacrosanct. This is completely inaccurate, which MPOC would know if they had ever taken a single fucking history class in their entire lives, or even if they, you know, read the WIKIPEDIA PAGES for basic fucking things like the Annales School, E.H. Carr’s ‘What is History?’, Postcolonialism or Historical Revisionism. Hey, while we’re here, let’s check out the definition of that last one!!!!:

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.

Let’s repeat and emphasize that last sentence "CONSTANT REVISION OF HISTORY IS PART OF THE !!!NORMAL!!! SCHOLARLY PROCESS OF WRITING HISTORY”. Wow, it’s almost like MPOC’s insistence that academic historians “don’t question” secondary sources that “have been around long enough” is a completely bullshit statement designed to make their naive readers skeptical and distrustful of rigorous scholarship in order to give false authority to their own statements.

They don’t even explain coherently WHY they hate certain types of methodology and historiography, they simply react against them because if it’s part of the establishment it must be wrong and if the establishment is wrong, that means MPOC is the authority on the subject and if you question them, it’s because you’re narrow-minded. They spend a lot of time furiously debunking various forms of methodology and categorization as “irrelevant” seemingly because they’ve been called out on not understanding the basic tenants (ie; their tireless crusade against periodization based entirely on a strawman of what they think periodization is and the fact that they’ve been questioned multiple times about their inaccurate application of historical periods).

I’m not saying that it’s impossible to be a fantastic amateur historian. I’m not making an argument that only people who have been formally and academically trained in a subject are allowed to talk about it. I’m saying that MPOC deliberately misrepresents what formal academic history is so that it’s easy for them to dismiss criticism of their own methodology. I actually think they have the potential to be a p. decent history blog if just they would stop trying to position themselves as some sort of iconoclastic history Robin Hood.

Objectivity is a myth. We don’t suddenly stop being human when we start thinking about something! The problem is that there is a lack of openness, a lack of discussion, and a massive amount if bias that only goes one way. There is only one narrative, and no counternarrative. [3]

Provably untrue. There is no want for discussion and counter-narrative in academic historiography.

I agree that objectivity is a largely a myth, but MPOC does a dishonest double-whammy by insisting that because objectivity is objectively impossible, it’s pointless (and implicitly bigoted) to strive for it. They also use the “objectivity is a myth” defense to create a paradigm in which they can admit their bias while still positioning their scholarship as intrinsically more “truthy” than the “real historians” who criticize them because their bias is noble and progressive.

I’ve said time after time after TIME, THIS IS THE STUFF YOU DON’T. LEARN. IN. CLASSES. IF YOU WANT THE STUFF YOU LEARN IN CLASS, GO TO CLASS. AREN’T YOU LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND GET YOUR APPROVED TRUTHS IN THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENT. [4]

How many times do people who actually went to university for history have to tell MPOC that a lot of this stuff is commonly taught in their programs and, furthermore, most of it is historiography 101. Hell, I went to a tiny, local university not particularly known for it’s history department and my ‘Western Civilization 1000’ course was about the interconnected histories of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. We spent as long studying Ethiopia as we did the rise of Islam and the Reformation. Our textbooks were very common, widely taught academic readers used throughout North America and English-speaking Europe so it’s not like it was some kind of intentionally revisionist course or w/e.

Do any of you have any idea how amazing the concept of “we have created entirely new questions regarding ancient history/historiography” is????

We have proved that this level of discourse can be made accessible, and I’m pretty sure we all just leveled up. [5]

The discussion on MPOC is TOTALLY REVOLUTIONARY SCHOLARSHIP that would otherwise NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO LAYPEOPLE!!! AMAZING!!!! They are asking questions that have NEVER BEEN ASKED!!!!

MPOC claims from one side of their mouth that they don’t intend for their readers to take them as an authority and they welcome well-thought out criticism [6] while from the other side they insist that they are a source of information and perspective that is otherwise unrepresented in the academic world.

The blog is scholarship by a person who insists that traditional methodology is unimportant. MPOC also emphasizes the myth of “inaccessible” academia, adding to an atmosphere that discourages people from engaging with critical scholarship because it’s “elitist” and only for “rich white kids” despite the increasing efforts on the part of scholars from minority or oppressed groups to make scholarly readings available and inclusive.

LIKE THE ONES OP LINKED IN THEIR POST. GO CHECK THOSE OUT IF YOU’RE INTERESTED.

marauders4evr:

Wow, so I cannot draw.
That’s alright though. I’m more of a writer. And I have a story to tell.
I have always been disabled. However, up until eight years ago, I could still walk, run, skip, jump, etc. In November 2006, I had a surgery that left me almost paralyzed. I could walk short distances but had to spend the rest of my time in a wheelchair. I was scared and confused. I didn’t know what to do. One day, I turned on the small television in my hospital room and realized that there was an Avatar marathon on. Now, you must understand. I’ve watched Avatar since I was in the fourth grade – when the very first episode came out! So I sat back and eagerly watched the marathon, whispering the dialogue and humming along to the music. When The Northern Air Temple came on, I sat in stunned silence. I had forgotten all about Teo! Here was an epic, well-written, character who just so happened to be disabled! Even better, he was a character who didn’t let his disability define him! By the time I reached The Blind Bandit, I was grinning from ear-to-ear as I watched Toph take down the group of wrestlers.
Toph and Teo are two of the best characters with disabilities that I’ve ever seen. Both are shown to have their limitations. Nevertheless, they’re both mentally, emotionally, and physically strong! And most importantly, they overcome their limitations! Teo can still fly around with the rest of his friends and is able to protect his home when the time comes. Toph is still able to travel around with the Avatar and has proven herself to be an excellent fighter and the greatest earthbender in the world! 
To me, it was as if these fictional characters were saying, “You can do this! Don’t listen to anyone who says otherwise. What do they know!?”
And eight years later, it seem that the tables have turned.
A large part of the Avatar fandom seems to be taking the news that Korra’s in a wheelchair very badly. I’ve seen so many depressing and nasty comments. Many people are wondering how the Avatar can still fight and keep balance while being in a wheelchair.
And every time I see someone comment about how Korra “can’t do this” I just smile and think, “Yes, she can.”
Zoom Info
marauders4evr:

Wow, so I cannot draw.
That’s alright though. I’m more of a writer. And I have a story to tell.
I have always been disabled. However, up until eight years ago, I could still walk, run, skip, jump, etc. In November 2006, I had a surgery that left me almost paralyzed. I could walk short distances but had to spend the rest of my time in a wheelchair. I was scared and confused. I didn’t know what to do. One day, I turned on the small television in my hospital room and realized that there was an Avatar marathon on. Now, you must understand. I’ve watched Avatar since I was in the fourth grade – when the very first episode came out! So I sat back and eagerly watched the marathon, whispering the dialogue and humming along to the music. When The Northern Air Temple came on, I sat in stunned silence. I had forgotten all about Teo! Here was an epic, well-written, character who just so happened to be disabled! Even better, he was a character who didn’t let his disability define him! By the time I reached The Blind Bandit, I was grinning from ear-to-ear as I watched Toph take down the group of wrestlers.
Toph and Teo are two of the best characters with disabilities that I’ve ever seen. Both are shown to have their limitations. Nevertheless, they’re both mentally, emotionally, and physically strong! And most importantly, they overcome their limitations! Teo can still fly around with the rest of his friends and is able to protect his home when the time comes. Toph is still able to travel around with the Avatar and has proven herself to be an excellent fighter and the greatest earthbender in the world! 
To me, it was as if these fictional characters were saying, “You can do this! Don’t listen to anyone who says otherwise. What do they know!?”
And eight years later, it seem that the tables have turned.
A large part of the Avatar fandom seems to be taking the news that Korra’s in a wheelchair very badly. I’ve seen so many depressing and nasty comments. Many people are wondering how the Avatar can still fight and keep balance while being in a wheelchair.
And every time I see someone comment about how Korra “can’t do this” I just smile and think, “Yes, she can.”
Zoom Info

marauders4evr:

Wow, so I cannot draw.

That’s alright though. I’m more of a writer. And I have a story to tell.

I have always been disabled. However, up until eight years ago, I could still walk, run, skip, jump, etc. In November 2006, I had a surgery that left me almost paralyzed. I could walk short distances but had to spend the rest of my time in a wheelchair. I was scared and confused. I didn’t know what to do. One day, I turned on the small television in my hospital room and realized that there was an Avatar marathon on. Now, you must understand. I’ve watched Avatar since I was in the fourth grade – when the very first episode came out! So I sat back and eagerly watched the marathon, whispering the dialogue and humming along to the music. When The Northern Air Temple came on, I sat in stunned silence. I had forgotten all about Teo! Here was an epic, well-written, character who just so happened to be disabled! Even better, he was a character who didn’t let his disability define him! By the time I reached The Blind Bandit, I was grinning from ear-to-ear as I watched Toph take down the group of wrestlers.

Toph and Teo are two of the best characters with disabilities that I’ve ever seen. Both are shown to have their limitations. Nevertheless, they’re both mentally, emotionally, and physically strong! And most importantly, they overcome their limitations! Teo can still fly around with the rest of his friends and is able to protect his home when the time comes. Toph is still able to travel around with the Avatar and has proven herself to be an excellent fighter and the greatest earthbender in the world!

To me, it was as if these fictional characters were saying, “You can do this! Don’t listen to anyone who says otherwise. What do they know!?”

And eight years later, it seem that the tables have turned.

A large part of the Avatar fandom seems to be taking the news that Korra’s in a wheelchair very badly. I’ve seen so many depressing and nasty comments. Many people are wondering how the Avatar can still fight and keep balance while being in a wheelchair.

And every time I see someone comment about how Korra “can’t do this” I just smile and think, “Yes, she can.”

depressednmoderatelywelldressed:

micdotcom:

Rihanna destroyed CBS’ attitude towards domestic abuse in 2 tweets 

Rihanna is not happy with CBS’s decision to cancel her performance before last week’s Thursday Night Football game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Baltimore Ravens. 
Sensing that an appearance by the singer — who was the victim of a highly publicized domestic abuse incident herself — might bring them some bad press in the wake of the Ray Rice domestic abuse scandal, the network decided to scrap her show. Rihanna wasn’t pleased
"The audacity" is right.


Protecting the men and their image over the victims and survivors

depressednmoderatelywelldressed:

micdotcom:

Rihanna destroyed CBS’ attitude towards domestic abuse in 2 tweets 

Rihanna is not happy with CBS’s decision to cancel her performance before last week’s Thursday Night Football game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Baltimore Ravens. 

Sensing that an appearance by the singer — who was the victim of a highly publicized domestic abuse incident herself — might bring them some bad press in the wake of the Ray Rice domestic abuse scandal, the network decided to scrap her show. Rihanna wasn’t pleased

"The audacity" is right.

Protecting the men and their image over the victims and survivors

outofthecavern:

malformalady:

Australian scientists have developed a pair of anti-shark wetsuits that make divers appear invisible by camouflaging their bodies in the sea and trick sharks into thinking surfers are poisonous. A team of researchers from the University of Western Australia joined forces with designers from  Shark Attack Mitigation Systems (SAMS) to create the suits. The blue pattern of the Elude suit can’t be seen by the shark because the fish are colour blind. While the stripes on the Diverter suit mimic the colours of poisonous fish to warn the sharks off.

YOU SEE THIS IS FANTASTIC. THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO. NOT KILL SHARKS BECAUSE THEY’RE CURIOUS AND ATTACK US. WE’RE IN THEIR WATERS. WE’RE MAKING THEIR HUNTING GROUNDS SMALLER.

outofthecavern:

malformalady:

Australian scientists have developed a pair of anti-shark wetsuits that make divers appear invisible by camouflaging their bodies in the sea and trick sharks into thinking surfers are poisonous. A team of researchers from the University of Western Australia joined forces with designers from  Shark Attack Mitigation Systems (SAMS) to create the suits. The blue pattern of the Elude suit can’t be seen by the shark because the fish are colour blind. While the stripes on the Diverter suit mimic the colours of poisonous fish to warn the sharks off.

YOU SEE THIS IS FANTASTIC. THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO. NOT KILL SHARKS BECAUSE THEY’RE CURIOUS AND ATTACK US. WE’RE IN THEIR WATERS. WE’RE MAKING THEIR HUNTING GROUNDS SMALLER.