Imagine thinking race didn’t exist in the EM period. #ShakeRace https://twitter.com/QueenMab87/status/1270782080633495562 …
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @jshelat1
Imagine not reading any early modern race work but commenting on it anyway.
3 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 12 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @DrDadabhoy ja @jshelat1
I think she's read it. She's written like a historian - if I read correctly setting up a difference between what happens when chattel slavery makes skin color the key marker of race, and the structures of difference that exist before.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @susandamussen ja @jshelat1
The problem is how she’s suggesting that chattel slavery is the only way in which race was yoked 2 skin color. We know from earlier periods that this isn’t true. Even if it was, the Portuguese and Spanish were enslaving in this period&using skin color&culture as justification.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 6 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @DrDadabhoy ja @jshelat1
I know that. The language we have is not always helpful for communicating both the continuities and the changes, and as historians we get hung up on that.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @susandamussen ja @jshelat1
That's more of a disciplinary issue than one of erasing the fact that race existed in the period, though. In literary studies we're comfortable pointing to the shifting, incoherent, and unstable project of racial formation.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 6 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @DrDadabhoy ja @jshelat1
It is a disciplinary issue. And I'm not defending her, just trying to see where she's coming from.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @susandamussen ja @jshelat1
Then the discipline is complicit in presenting a problematic view of the period, if there's a sustained refusal to use the language of race that is available to us. It's then presenting a race neutral early modern period. We might be saying the same thing.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @DrDadabhoy ja @jshelat1
Historians handle it differently. But many of us are *not* presenting a race neutral early modern period. My sense is that Iberianists do better than British historians. My own thinking keeps changing as I keep reading and working with my own questions.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
I was definitely guilty of this at the start of my PhD. I’d been taught that ‘anachronism’ is the worst crime a historian can commit. But then my supervisor suggested I read Kim F. Hall, and I realised that this ‘anachr’ concern was just unproductive disciplinary boundary work.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 5 tykkäystä
It seems to me that the language of what we call race was there in the period, yet we are being forced to think of race, in particular, as opposed to gender or sex, in restrictive ways. This raises the question of why that is so. What is the disciplinary&critical investment in 1/
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @DrDadabhoy, @EvaJohannaH ja
In condoning off race by calling it anachronistic? There’s a there there and we have to uncover it. Race doesn’t simply materialize one day in the form we recognize from the enlightenment. It’s foundations are older, they had to be to institute the form of chattel slavery 2/
5 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @DrDadabhoy, @EvaJohannaH ja
That is understood to codify it and to inaugurate modernity. As scholars we’re also reevaluating the racial occlusions and blinders of those who came before us, whose whiteness and racial positioning didn’t allow them to see the operations of whiteness at work. 3/3
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä - Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.