#18c

[cringeborg]

Pana Evening Dress

This simplistic evening dress, with its awkward, transitional silhouette and less-than-modest neckline, is perfect for any fashionable 1790s lady, or any less fashionable 1800s lady.

BGC

Custom thumbnail

39 swatches

Tagged as feminine

Found in the Long Dresses category

Casual, Formal, Party, Hot Weather

Polycount: 4658

All LODs

Normal map

Color tagged

Display index by decade

Disabled for random

Download (SFS)

Alt Download (Mediafire)

[muchas-azjas]

[theirmarks]

Thawinadichtow his mark & seal.

Also spelled Thowinoduchtow. Mohawk. Here representing Mohawk homelands that spread across areas known today as eastern New York State, parts of western Vermont and parts of southern Ontario and Quebec.

Thawinadichtow is another of eight Mohawk leaders to sign this document, detailing the transfer of land at the site of Fort Hunter west of so-called Albany, New York (we’ve previously shared pictograph marks from this document by Asras, Cornelius, Craine, Sander and Thenusskesack). Fort Hunter was constructed several years prior to the 1714 date of this deed, built by colonizers at the mouth of the Schoharie Creek, on the Mohawk River. Mohawk signers of this document identify themselves as representatives of “we the three Races or Tribes of the Mohaugs Indians the Turtle, Wolf & B[ea]r.”

Signed in “Mohaughs Cuntry” May 14, 1716. Seen at Chapin Special Collections Library, Williams College.

[professionalnooneatall]

Walz could be like Square Jaw McBangBang Gruntington Du KnuckleDragger K-Barius IV, A Green Beret with all four 18-series MOS's with 20 years in COMBAT alone and he'd still be getting dragged because he's on the democratic ticket.

[robespapier]

POV: the year is 1794 and you're drinking your coffee in revolutionnary bucolic cups

— from the Carnavalet temporary exhibition: Paris 1793-1794: une année révolutionnaire

[thafreedomwall]

[octavodecimo]

Sketch of Robespierre and something about a mirror I bought. I’ll have a picture of it posted on my side blog. I was almost tempted to colour this but I need to learn how to appreciate art that isn’t overdone.

[wetslug]

just tried making no knead bread for the first time and i think i may have fucked it up. im trying to get it to do its second proof/rise and this shit isnt getting any bigger 😭😭

[gouden-carolus]

Rose-tinted glasses

[javert]

for the past two months i have been playing this fun little game called "only go grocery shopping once at the beginning of the month and hope it lasts you until the end"

which, like, i'm a very economical cook and it's easy for me to eat off of my stock of shelf stable goods and whathaveyou. but by the like 23rd of the month or whatever i start thinking about how i'd kill someone to get my hands on some fresh fruit. so you know

[nocternalrandomness]

Hornet in the rain

[cringeborg]

Simblreen Treat Two - Simple Mobcap

A plain cap suitable for any historical lady to wear while being chased by ghosts in her home.

BGC

Found in Hats

32 Swatches

Vertices: 816

Polygons: 1102

NOT compatible with all hairs (this would be impossible to achieve without changing the look of the cap completely)

Download (SFS)

Alt Download (Mediafire)

[theirmarks]

The mark of Abigail Wamposh

Also spelled Abigail Wampos or Wompas. Wampanoag. Her homelands at Nashawahkamuk or so-called “Chilmark, Massachusetts,” on the island of Noepe, or so-called “Martha’s Vineyard.”

In 1729, Abigail was forcibly removed from her homelands and trafficked, in chains, to Newport, Rhode Island, where she was sold into servitude. Her mark appears here on her indenture to Thomas Coddington.

Signed with Abigail’s mark on August 30, 1729. Seen at the John Carter Brown Library.

[bogkeep]

idk if it's just my usual inability to handle heat or if T is making me run even hotter than before, but i'm gaining a new understanding of the Wearing Shorts In Winter crowd

[robespapier]

I saw Robespierre's briefcase again in the Carnavalet's temporary exhibition Paris 1793-1794: une année révolutionnaire. The briefcase used to be in their permanent display but was removed at some point between summer 2022 and 2023. They rotate the artefacts on display, and it's also possible the briefcase is fragile.

The cool thing is the way it was displayed in the 1793-94 exhibition allowed for a much closer look at it.

I previously could only read "Robespierre" on the front but turns out it also says "Correspondance de la veille"; makes one wonder how many of such briefcases he had for different files ?

[frevandrest]

Understanding 18th Century

There's a prevailing problem I've noticed in interpreting frev: people not really understanding that this was 18th century. Oh, they understand it on an intellectual level, but they still apply today's worldview to it. And you can't do that if you wish to understand wtf was going on.

(This is not about anyone here nor a shade at anyone in particular. Just a trend I've noticed, especially in bad takes).

All historical periods have this problem where people interpret things from the point of view of our own time. So that's hardly special about frev and 18c. But a tricky part is that 18c saw the development of things that we still use today (constitutions, voting system, etc.) that it may seem like it's more similar to our world than it actually was.

For example. The voting system. They had it and so do we. Except they were assholes who didn't allow women to vote. (Which is fair criticism, but people often forget that not all men had the right to vote either - so any criticism of exclusion should take that into account. Was it really about women per se, or about their ideas on who can and cannot make a free and rational vote? What is that they saw wrong about women and certain men voting? - Their attitude sure sucks, but if we ask these questions we understand better what was going on vs just going "sexist men", which only explains part of the issue). Or: journalism. They had political slander and so do we. But uuugh, their slander was so openly personal and often ridiculed someone's looks/sexual practices in supposedly serious political attacks - wtf was that? Or: trials. Of course we all know how trials are supposed to be done and what kind of arguments/evidence they should include. The fact they focused so much on character slander is incorrect and ridiculous, and...

Stop. Instead of assuming that they "did it incorrectly", think about: 1) how we do these things today is a product of decades/centuries of development; they didn't have that. They were only inventing it for the first time. 2) They did stuff according to their cultural beliefs. If they focused so much on character assassination as an argument, it means it was significant for their worldview.

You might not like it (and fair enough) but it's not possible to understand what was going on unless we understand how they thought and what they knew and what their worldview was. Which is not easy. It's not simply about knowing the state of scientific thought or what they believed about the world. Understanding how this affected the way they thought and how they interpreted things, or how they build meaning and conclusions - none of that is easy. But we have to question our assumptions, even if we're unable to see things from their pov. Because that's the only way not to arrive at wrong conclusions.

Similarly, many terms what they used had a different meaning to how they are used today (or, at least, they were understood in ways dissimilar to how we use them). Concepts such as despotism, tyranny, dictator, terror; also some seemingly easy to understand terms like "being a moderate" or even "patriotism". If we assume 18th century people used them in the same way that we do, we won't be able to understand wtf they are talking about.