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.
-
-
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/
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
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
I’ve been following this with great interest as a modern historian dealing with these issues in survey courses that usually begin c 1500. I completely agree that we need language that acknowledges structures of power and engage with race while still pointing out what changed/
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä
This is a sincere question, so I hope you will take it as such, but doesn't "the language that acknowledges the structures of power" that engages with race already exist?
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @DrDadabhoy, @EvaJohannaH ja
Sorry I’m not great yet on Twitter and the rest of that got lost somewhere. My point is that historians struggle (or I do but seems I’m not alone!) with marking off what changed re race in mod period while still acknowledging something else going on before, if that makes sense.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @Amy_WB, @EvaJohannaH ja
Yes, thank you
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.