No, because my opinion is based in evidence, and yours is not. The value of an opinion is directly related to the level of support for said opinion. You're in a thread full of historians trying to speak down to others based on, what, three years of Old English instruction?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Pond_Dweller @vermiciouskid and
A degree in what? Historical linguistics. It's certainly not history, not given the lazy way you use rhetoric that 30 years ago would have been questionable. It's not prejudice to oppose your weird AS fetishism and awful racial politics. You're not a victim here.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Pond_Dweller @vermiciouskid and
So English Literature. Meaning you're not a historian or archaeologist. Meaning you're lecturing people outside your field in their fields all due to your weird fetishistic attachment to a racist concept with no real basis in evidence.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Gearoid_Dubh @Pond_Dweller and
"Anglo-Saxon" doesn't exist. It's a term invented in the modern era, steeped in race science and racism, to create a glorious ancestor for the English without being too German about it, given the rivalry between the two regions/states.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Gearoid_Dubh @Pond_Dweller and
The term is not used in contemporary sources. It's not how people self-identified. It does not define a clear archaeological horizon. What it does define is a racialist myth that you're clinging to. You keep using the term in clearly racialist 19th century ways in your tweets.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gearoid_Dubh @Pond_Dweller and
You defined that movie you're so obsessed with as "exploring Anglo-Saxon transience". That's clear 19th century racialist thinking, applying characteristics to broad ethno-racial groups. It's pure anti-scientific bunk.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gearoid_Dubh @Pond_Dweller and
Quick clarification: it was used three or four times in the early medieval period, it was first used in a Frankish source as an exonym and then Alfred the Great used it in some legal documents to refer to his position. But it was not the widely used term.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
And it is more commonly used in a racist context as you say.
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.