2) the investment in the term seems to be disproportionate. Which leads me to suspect bad faith on the part of some (not all) who are most vociferous in their desire for its retention. I believe the wider cultural context and history of the term informs this more than a concern
-
-
Replying to @stmarnock69 @DollyJorgensen and
for terminological exactitude. AS a term has undoubted utility, however one is prompted to question whether that utility can be weighed against its wider cultural misappropriation. I believe it cannot. There are good arguments on the question to be sure.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @stmarnock69 @DollyJorgensen and
As someone in the field, Anglo-Saxon has a limited contemporary usage and people of that time didn’t ID as such. And just because it’s in schoolbooks etc doesn’t mean we shouldn’t move past it. There are plenty of terms we have gotten rid of.
3 replies 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @stmarnock69 and
And that argument is silly because it assumes that we don’t already make changes or advocate for changes in scholarship. When I was in my undergrad my archaeology textbooks became incorrect the year I purchased them
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @stmarnock69 and
Because the Neanderthal genome sequencing was released 6 months after I purchased that textbook, which said that we have no relation to Neanderthals. Also, people were saying Anglo-Saxon England. Removing “Anglo-Saxon” and replacing it with “Early Medieval”
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @stmarnock69 and
Is in fact more inclusive of the multitudes of identities at the time.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @DollyJorgensen and
My way of thinking is that tying a period to a contemporary geographical area has greater utility than calling a period “Anglo-Saxon”. No Jutes? No Irish? No Ramano-Britons? England has always been a place of many peoples. IMHO if we wish to label that period, geographical
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @stmarnock69 @AdmiralHip and
designation has greater utility than a fictive imagined community which Anglo-Saxon clearly denotes.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @stmarnock69 @AdmiralHip and
I’ll only add to all this that I acknowledge the problem - but I disagree w proposed solution. I’m inspired by work of Sara Bond who has countered appropriation of white classical statues w writing on polychromy & racial diversity in Rome. To me it’s better approach.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DollyJorgensen @stmarnock69 and
The term isn’t just appropriated, it’s modern usage has a very racist history in Europe, since the 19th c at least. J.M. Kemble, noted English historian, massive racist who talked about the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
This has been reiterated over and over. And again, if you are acknowledging the problem, then you acknowledge it’s a problem in Europe? Because it is.
-
-
Replying to @AdmiralHip @DollyJorgensen and
Why are we so attached to a term that has been shown to not have been used that much in the period, that is being used by white supremacists and ethnonationalists? What will we lose by getting rid a term that has a terrible history and isn’t that accurate?
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @DollyJorgensen and
And to you, a white person, a better approach may not in fact be better for all of our BIPOC colleagues who are being harassed, who have left the field because of racism, who feel unwelcome constantly.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 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.