The @thetimes have weighed into the Anglo-Saxons discussion. Here’s a summary of their piece:
1) @ISASaxonists has argued that "Anglo-Saxon" is pseudohistorical & only became popular in the 1700s & 1800s.
2) @john_overholt supports this, noting that the term aids white supremacy
So, we're back to the seventies. When identity, 'correct' jargon and polarisation were more important in humanities than actual science.
-
-
Actually, the people being in their twenties in the 60's and 70's were boomers. So, not me. But then, knowing that would requires actual knowledge of history instead of comparing everything with the latest pc trend.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Ask biologists and zoologist if proper terminology is not part of science. We can't simply negate the power of words. The 'dark ages' were eventually dropped and for a good reason. Our historical terminology must fit our findings and reflect reality, not any ideology.pic.twitter.com/4xyUiFhHVC
-
I never learned 'dark ages' as the official name of that period, but then again it was never a term in my language. I do know some medieval historians at my alma mater were very busy with renaming 'the middle ages', because it was 'wrong'. Was a bit sad, tbh.
- 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.