This is actually mostly the faults of eruthros and thingswithwings who got me thinking about this with the
extended and hilarious rants on the general topics of "Steve Rogers
knows about [insert topic here]!" Where [topic] could be anything from
television to queerness. It's interesting to me because people getting
it wrong re what Steve Rogers knows isn't really a bad research
problem, it's a problem rooted in the way we conceive of the past as
conservative and the present as not, the past as ignorant and the
present as knowing, etc. etc. Which bounced sideways in my brain into
how, in historical queer romance, there's never a queer community.
People have to reinvent queerness from scratch every time. Which I
find quite problematic, and also not fun.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori and
no subject
Date: 2013-10-06 06:59 pm (UTC)This is actually mostly the faults of![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
eruthros and ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
thingswithwings who got me thinking about this with the
extended and hilarious rants on the general topics of "Steve Rogers
knows about [insert topic here]!" Where [topic] could be anything from
television to queerness. It's interesting to me because people getting
it wrong re what Steve Rogers knows isn't really a bad research
problem, it's a problem rooted in the way we conceive of the past as
conservative and the present as not, the past as ignorant and the
present as knowing, etc. etc. Which bounced sideways in my brain into
how, in historical queer romance, there's never a queer community.
People have to reinvent queerness from scratch every time. Which I
find quite problematic, and also not fun.
/thirty second simple version.