Read on Twitter
just a grumpy queer historian here to say there have been millions of historical variations of LGBTQ+ people for fucking thousands of years. throughout history these people have loved, hidden, or been hidden by shitty historians & a shitty world & we ain’t fucking around anymore
I say “historical variations” because for some reason, a lot of people have the main argument of “well [historical figure] wouldn’t have considered themselves gay.” first of all, you don’t know jackshit. second of all, language & culture are constantly evolving!!
You interpret history with the evidence given to you within the context of the time period. Sometimes you truly don’t know! Sometimes you’re that one label text in the ROM that says “toys or religious offerings.” Because ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
It’s looking at something through such a heavy heteronormative lens that the idea of any kind of queer relationship didn’t/doesn’t even occur to people! But when it IS obvious, queerness is still considered “scandalous” (like how kids shows with queer plots are censored)
So many of the old conservative historians, even when faced with hard evidence, refused to acknowledge it because they were bigots! Sometimes it’s just that simple. If we hide the history of queerness, we can keep pretending it’s new and scary! Fucking bullshit thanks!
This morning, I got so mad at this phrasing because maybe if LGBTQ+ history had been being taught all along & numerous LGBTQ+ cultures not ignored, people wouldn’t see the word “issues” & automatically start shouting https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1111408816501882880?s=21
Here’s a thread I did when I visited Fonthill Castle in Doylestown, PA. I didn’t know there was a hint of queerness until someone mentioned a “lifelong friend,” which is a classic code — https://twitter.com/historiancole/status/1079433198529142786?s=21
And oh my god remember this article by @zoeschlanger ab lesbian seagulls? People don’t even want to believe queerness can exist in the animal kingdom & you think the excuse of “[old language] doesn’t have a word for gay” is a real excuse & not bigoted? https://qz.com/1023638/the-gulls-are-alright-how-a-lesbian-seagull-discovery-shook-up-1970s-conservatives/
If evidence is being ignored & the argument is still “they wouldn’t have considered themselves queer”— you’re a shitty historian. Do research & find how they would’ve seen themselves! If they weren’t doing something “traditional” they sure as shit considered themselves something!
just adding my thread of DC disappointments of today to my overall queer erasure in history thread. https://twitter.com/historiancole/status/1114600123408048134?s=21
Great tips on being inclusive when discussing this topic!! https://twitter.com/magmidd/status/1146405222308356096?s=21
I really enjoyed this article with the exception of the following: “So-called “romantic friendships,” encompassing emotionally and intellectually intimate but not necessarily sexual relationships, were common among women at the time.” No need for it imo! https://twitter.com/smithsonianmag/status/1150374687576399874?s=21
People are always looking for excuses in queer history. Don’t hand them a statement to point to. These “romantic friendships” are so-called bc we are still fighting the historic heteronormative lens. THESE letters are explicit, these women loved one another, that’s what matters.
tw: talk of possible suicide but an amazing story that shows as @magmidd said “queer history saves lives” 
https://twitter.com/literaturepeep/status/1151377399436775424?s=21
https://twitter.com/literaturepeep/status/1151377399436775424?s=21
dear penn museum, you KNOW these women valued Sappho for more than just female creativity & empowerment 
If you’re going to make a label text, make a label text, not a damn road sign for someone to go find queer information hidden on a website. Queer history & influence is important https://twitter.com/hannah_rfh/status/1153252091860836353?s=21
Fucking mute me right now cause the only thing I’m going to be talking about for the next billion years is my new favorite person: queer 19th lighthouse keeper Harriet Colfax who lived with HER DEAR LIFELONG FRIEND in Michigan City Lighthouse for 43 years. Talk about goals
The children’s book I bought in the museum gift shop talks about how Harriet wanted a roof over her & Ann’s head, calls Ann a companion, and then in the author’s note, calls her a dear friend. BUT THERE’S ALSO THIS ILLUSTRATION AND I LOVE IT
The website page about them has newspaper excerpts which are all amazing please read about them and their clearly acknowledged romance way back when— https://www.oldlighthousemuseum.org/colfax_hartwell.html
“Harriet formed a close friendship with Miss Ann C. Hartwell...the two spent the rest of their lives together.” [from Women Who Kept the Lights, second edition, 2001]
*loud booing*
Do the women in the previously mentioned newspaper articles really appear as just close friends?
![“Harriet formed a close friendship with Miss Ann C. Hartwell...the two spent the rest of their lives together.” [from Women Who Kept the Lights, second edition, 2001] *loud booing* Do the women in the previously mentioned newspaper articles really appear as just close friends?](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDaY-96XkAARh9h.jpg "“Harriet formed a close friendship with Miss Ann C. Hartwell...the two spent the rest of their lives together.” [from Women Who Kept the Lights, second edition, 2001] *loud booing* Do the women in the previously mentioned newspaper articles really appear as just close friends?")
*loud booing*
Do the women in the previously mentioned newspaper articles really appear as just close friends?
Always consider queer possibility
I haven’t stopped screaming for ten million years. MAYBE THEYRE JUST COUSINS OR CLOSE FRIENDS WOW https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/12/lovers-of-modena-skeletons-holding-hands-were-both-men-study
adding the viking gay thread to this other gay thread i have. gotta keep those gay resources as....straight as...possible? sorry fuck trying to delete https://twitter.com/historiancole/status/1175766561006784512?s=20
clarification for my future self-- when i contacted the Penn Museum to ask them about the queer erasure re: a Sappho ring in their Memory Keepers exhibit, they told me it was a result of a lack of time & resources https://twitter.com/historiancole/status/1184121100860563457?s=20
This article is really interesting but it's also disheartening because the first space to check for queers is always just to see who was arrested and convicted on sodomy charges https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/11/16/like-chasing-shadows-uncovering-colonial-williamsburgs-lgbtq-history/?fbclid=IwAR0h5KVebeYb2c1fIrCiGjtSOOaHGIqOcX_VujYm4y49x6InbUv5aAw9GSE
*tilts back head, unlocks jaw, one thousand bats fly out* https://twitter.com/quendergeer/status/1206502671580041216?s=20
if i've said it once, i've said it a thousand times, ban cis straight people from archaeology https://twitter.com/historiancole/status/1175769350164365312?s=20
This early 20th century scientist god damn wrote his notes about gay penguins in Greek so it would be harder for people to access the information 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/09/sex-depravity-penguins-scott-antarctic
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/09/sex-depravity-penguins-scott-antarctic
""It is extraordinary to find an ordinary, casual observer in 1810 seriously considering the possibility that sexuality is innate and making arguments for decriminalisation," says Dr Norton." https://www.bbc.com/news/education-51385884
"While there is no concrete evidence to pinpoint he ever had same-sex relationships, Davies said the hints of a queer identity were there. "He put on touring productions of an Oscar Wilde play..."
Imagine thinking that isn't concrete evidence?? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-51651894
Imagine thinking that isn't concrete evidence?? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-51651894
i would beg you to take fifty minutes out of your day and watch this lovely presentation about LGBTQ objects throughout history. it's a comfort to the voice insisting that we're here and we've always been here https://twitter.com/DanNouveau/status/1243878023604178944?s=20
Only timestamp 29:45 to 30:30 discusses Humboldt’s sexuality since straight historians don’t ever consider the implications of how a person’s queerness would have shaped their entire life, work, & even the need to be on the outside of the ‘polite society' https://twitter.com/SmithsonianChan/status/1242949421173743616
One day, I'll teach people the difference between historic inference & poetic license but the first lesson will be all about how a historic figure whose personal letters were all destroyed for his safety wasn't going to write you a straightforward letter about liking dick
again, i cannot be clearer when i say i give not two shits about any man's opinion regarding historic queer women. that being said, i WOULD like one of the ceramic tchotchke collectibles of these two women mentioned in this piece https://twitter.com/JSTOR_Daily/status/1248985410841313282?s=20
