Before we get into my classes on October 6th, I will talk about Friday the 3rd because although I did not have a class that day, my French Revolution professor from semester 6 encouraged me to attend a talk by one of the newly hired professors because he is a scholar of queer and fascist history, specifically regarding Italy. She thought maybe he could help me with my own interests as we have a fascist course offered at my university but no one to teach it. This talk would focus on queer history, mostly centred on Trans people especially those documented by the photographer Lisetta Carmi (1924-2022).

I will not go into details about the talk itself, not because it isn’t interesting, but because I do not want to bloat this post anymore than I already do regularly. If you want details about it just let me know. I will say that it didn’t talk about fascism, but it had a lot of commentary on how hard it is to queer the past due to terminology of now compared to then, plus documentation is just so murky. Homosexuals and transgender people were essentially one and the same. There was also the idea that we should be wary of imposing kinship on queer individuals of the past.

After the talk my professor found me and struck up a conversation before she led me to the new professor so we could ask him about my own studies. I am mentioning this because it details my ineptitude regarding communicating with fellow human beings. It was an incredibly embarrassing display. My professor had to introduce me to him and tell him about my current struggles regarding queer history. We weren’t able to mention fascism as I was too scared to be honest, I do not know why but something held me back. I very awkwardly told him about how finding sources on queer people in post-Socialist states and also in colonial Canada was difficult. He was unable to really help with Canada because he specializes in Europe, but he did talk about Dan Healey, someone I am well acquainted with (not in real life, I just have two of his books). He encouraged me to email him about my topic but I have yet to do so out of embarrassment. We weren’t able unable to ask him about potentially teaching the fascism course as other people wanted to talk to him.

My professor and I ended up walking out of the area together and talked about my path to a masters and PhD. She gave me advice regarding funds, like not going into debt for grad school. I was worried about scholarships because although my grades are good (they could be better if I could wrangle this damned ADHD) but I do not have volunteer experience, which seems to be the main thing when I look at available scholarships to sign up for. I am so bad when it comes to leaving my house, it was painful enough coming to this talk so imagine how bad I would be volunteering. I do have very minor experience with volunteering as a waiter for a rural hall for their afternoon tea event, but I do not believe any scholarships would take that seriously.

She told me that when she and her husband (my Genocide professor) went to grad school they did not have to have these things to get funding, you just need the grades and letters of recommendation from your professors. This was good enough for me. I am still worried about my topic and where I am going to study. I’d like to go to another province but unless they are going to give me an amazing full ride (provide funds for housing and food) scholarship then I will have to stay in my home province (which sucks because I hate it here). I still have a year to figure things out and I will have nearly a year of no school before I do a masters (I finish my undergraduate grad next year in the fall and intake for a masters doesn’t happen until fall as well so I will have a lot of months just doing whatever) which also gives me more time for language learning.

This whole experience was a mix, it was humiliating and it was no one’s fault but my own, but it was also fun as the food and lecture were both fantastic. I just wish I was a functioning adult instead of a badly programmed robot. Younger me had it much easier and I was still a very shy and introverted person, I do not know what happened. My mom believes its because of my awareness and paranoia surrounding politics, I didn’t have that as a kid. Now I am just in a perpetual cycle of fear, exhaustion, and sadness. I want to do so much but I do not know if I am capable of it.

Anyway, enough of my self pity, let’s move on to October 6th, 2025.

Full disclosure, I was feeling ill in the morning and missed my Women’s History class which was all an introduction to the DPRK. Thankfully all the notes I take during these classes are written on the slides that are available on the course website. So I promise I did not miss anything regarding commentary… probably.

The first slide states “How much does the media influence our understanding of North Korea?” So I can only assume that she was giving a disclaimer that our understanding of the DPRK is skewed to something very specific and we should be aware of our biases. This slide was accompanied by a news video that is titled “North Korea footage shows Kim Jong Un overseeing rocket launcher drills.” Now because I was not there for class I do not know what was said nor do I know what the video stated but I have my ideas. Unfortunately any imbedded videos in the slides are unable to be played by me as the slide shows available are in the form of a PDF, so I cannot play them.

The next slide was how the Socialist state was constructed in the DPRK. It was established in 1948 with Kim Il Sung as premier after the Soviets left the peninsula. Quickly, the North built a “strong state” with a centralized state apparatus. There was firm control over the Korean Workers Party, the ruling party whose popularity spread throughout the populace. Creating this strong state also came with building a cult of personality around Kim Il Sung. Okay, so here’s the cult thing again. What is this actually about? Every socialist leader that has been mentioned in every single one of my classes talks about a ”cult of personality” but this is never detailed. Anyway, Kim Il Sung created and propped up Chuch’e (Juche) as the state’s ruling ideology.

Next slide is titled “the ‘women’ problem in socialism.” It states that Socialist countries needed to see women as specifically “revolutionary.” There was, more often than not, a dilemma between what was “tradition” and the “new revolutionary program.” In the DPRK, post liberation, the idea of “revolutionary motherhood” came to the forefront, evolving from Confucianism, legacies of colonialism, patriarchy, and the cult around the leadership of Kim Il Sung.

The next slide then listed economic and social policies: nationalization of industries and commerce; land reform and collectivization of agriculture; aid from the USSR and the PRC; mass mobilization; multiyear economic plans; and getting rid of feudal practices. There was then a slide called “Law to eradicated remnants of feudal practices,” which was enacted in 1947. Then there was a slide listing articles 1 through 5 of the Gender Equality Law (1946):

Article 1: Women have equal rights to men economically, culturally, socially, and politically in all areas of life of the nation.

Article 2: Women have the same rights as men to vote and be elected in the regional as well as the highest national organs.

Article 3: Women have the same rights as men to workers rights, equal wages, social insurance, and education.

Article 4: Women, like men, have the right to free marriage. Unfree and forced marriage without the consent of those marrying is prohibited.

Article 5: When it becomes difficult to continue the married relationship, women have the same rights as men to free divorce.

The lecture seemed to end with this quote:

“Lastly, let us look at the relationship between women and men in the Soviet Union. Immediately after the revolution, marriage and divorce were made simple, permitting freedom, in order to eradicate corrupt feudal practices. This does not guarantee women’s treedom, however, but forces on women great physical blows such as abortions, or they have to take their baby to the orphanage. If they cannot do that, then, they must raise them on their own. Such licentious free marriage and divorce not only bring disorder upon a healthy society but also are great obstacles in increasing the population. Thus, gradually, conditions for divorce were strictly regulated, and even after divorce, men bore a great burden, thereby protecting women’s interests. … It is necessary to establish a bright yet pure, solemn yet free family of one husband and one wife. This we should learn from the Soviet Union.”

Hong Ch’i-ok, “Social Status of Russian Women” in Chosăn yosõng (September 1946)

Now we can move on to my seminar class, which I did actually attend as I was not feeling sick anymore, plus attendance in that class is important as fuck, I am not risking shit when it comes to this course. I love my women’s history class but I feel less bad missing one due to the slides being detailed. My seminar has ZERO slides and is just a yap session. Anyway let’s get into it.

Before the seminar began my professor asked us if we had a topic fr our papers. He went around the room and everyone said what their topic was. When he got to me I said I had a topic but did not elaborate on what it was about. Some of the students laughed at my behaviour and my professor didn’t seem bothered by my answer as he just smoothly moved on. He already knows what my topic is about as we had discussed it during office hours. If you’re curious I chose to write about LGBT people in colonial western Canada. My professor said this was a very difficult subject to write about as these people are essentially erased. I am trying to find research about “queer” people from Indigenous and settler communities. I actually found a few papers, ones that he had never known existed, so I think I am on the right track. I think my paper will be about the erasure of queer people as a form of nation building as Canada was just like that. A paper he told me about was how the Canadian government attacked polygamy in Indigenous communities (and mormons) and pushed a Victorian view of sexuality/gender roles to build up what they wanted Canada to be. Does that make sense?

Anyway, today’s seminar was about the environment and Indigenous communities. The first piece was arguing that the disappearance of the buffalo (bison) was due to mostly environmental factors. Pop writers and historians like too blame the US government for deliberately killing the buffalo but according to Flores (this writer) a little ice age had killed off the grass buffalo like to eat and there was a drought; buffalo were out competed by horses and cattle for grass and water; bovine diseases were also a problem. Blame was placed on hide hunters and the selfishness of the Indigenous but documents do not support this (only 2 million out of 20 million buffalo were killed by tanners).

I read through the rest of my notes and I honestly do not think I need to write anymore. Most of the yap session was uneventful and no funny/out of pocket comments were made so I am going to end the post here. It’s already getting long enough.