beau–brummell:

‘XYZ person from history was problematic for XYZ reason and you shouldn’t talk about them on your blog or post about them because if you do, it’s tantamount to endorsing the bad things they said/did’ Gonna be real with you, chief, but this (weirdly popular, at least on Tumblr Dot Hell) mentality is so redundant of any like….real worth. Everyone from the past would be ‘problematic’ in the modern world, every single person, including the most radical of radicals. Really, unless someone on here outright says they support something atrocious or truly admires a really evil historical figure (like Hitler), then it’s a bit weird to put words into their mouth and assume that they support something or think positively about something because one of the historical figures they are interested in (and remember, ‘interested in’ doesn’t always necessarily mean ‘I like them’) from 300 plus years ago did. Like, I love Louis XIV of France but that doesn’t mean I particularly crave to live under an absolute monarch and besides, I’m half-Rromani and so, would’ve barely even been allowed in France at the time Louis was kicking about. But I learnt this fantastic thing called ‘nuance’ and it really helps me retain my passion.

Also, most importantly, you actually don’t do anyone any favours by refusing to contextualise and face the awful things otherwise normal people did in the past. Understanding the nuances of something does not equal excusing it. Refusing to even acknowledge the parts of history that make you uncomfortable (usually because you don’t know how to process them, since history almost never fits a simple black-and-white narrative) is how we end up forgetting ourselves and forgetting the kind of atrocious things we’re all capable of. That’s dangerous.