Re: the question of using the term, I would center the needs of scholars of color here. Would retaining the term make them feel welcomed in the field? Would it contribute to anti-racism? Would using it potentially still draw white supremacists to the field?
-
-
Replying to @erik_kaars
I definitely don’t agree with most of the article for all the reasons you point out. I support name change and am training myself not to use it. I’m just worried about outreach beyond the scholarly community regarding changing this entrenched terminology.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @medievalhistory @erik_kaars
But why? What could the name change do to affect outreach? I mean, there are plenty of terms we no longer use that are still used in pop history, but I can’t see Anglo-Saxon being one that is too entrenched with the study of the period, at least outside Britain.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @erik_kaars
I am worried about Britain, though! And it is more concerning to leave a term lying about that would be useful to fascists than something innocuous like feudalism
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @medievalhistory @erik_kaars
The term is already being used by fascists. It has been a word for white supremacy since the 19th c at least. The desperation from white scholars to hold onto this instead of acknowledging how it is harmful for BIPOC in the field in Britain and the rest of the world is a bad look
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @erik_kaars
I worry that in fact very few people are looking at us at all. There are millions of people, even history buffs, who have no idea this debate is going on at all, learning about Anglo-Saxons in class and googling it on the internet. That’s what I’m suggesting we take thought for.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @medievalhistory @erik_kaars
Which is why the field needs to change. The problem you have seems to be more with our inability and/or unwillingness to engage with the public, but that is often a problem for older white scholars who hold up the idea of history being the field of elites.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @erik_kaars
I don’t think the two problems can be disentangled from each other and my only suggestion is that both need to be considered in tandem if this is going to have a fully positive outcome.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @medievalhistory @erik_kaars
Except that the idea of public engagement has been central to this from the start. Making the field more accessible is a primary goal.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @erik_kaars
I agree that that is crucial, but making the field more accessible is only one angle, and it doesn’t address the issue I’m raising here.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Then I am not understanding. You say you are worried about the term being misused by white supremacists. It already is. You’re worried about the public not seeing the discussion, but the discussions on this have been public and there was a WaPo article on it.
-
-
Replying to @AdmiralHip @erik_kaars
One WaPo article is a good start, but I am not convinced that just because this debate is publicly available it is sufficiently in the public eye. I do what I can on twitter but what I’m raising here is how to do more.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @medievalhistory @erik_kaars
Okay, then say that. Because honestly this all reads like you are asking the vulnerable people to do the labour here or saying this is pointless without the public. Research how to engage with the public on this. The marginalized scholars have been doing a lot of labour as is.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.