To judge from recent comments, it seems to be the case that at least some members of English departments in the US believe that discussion of 'race' in medieval studies began in the 2010s. This is a little surprising. In archaeology and history departments in Europe... 1/n
-
Show this thread
-
-
Replying to @alvarezjimenezd @SimonJPTrafford
Actually, the way that medieval historians and archaeologists have discussed "race" basically has defined it as if they ignored a century of historiography in social sciences on the term and especially the last 50 years. So no, medieval historians and archaeologists did 1/2
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
not discuss "race" before 2010 in the way that actually attends to the definition that is not a white supremacist, pre-Civil Rights definition. If you wish to read more about that, you can wait for the AHR article that they have asked me for that I expect will be out in 2020.
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @dorothyk98 @alvarezjimenezd
Great, if you are engaging with it there, then I look forward to reading about it. (Sorry, it's hard to make that statement not sound sarcastic, but please believe me that it is not intended to be so). Discussion of race in medieval studies has taken a really interesting...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
...turn in the last few years, I'm happy to agree, and the more that those -such as yourself- who have promoted those interesting conversations engage with existing scholarship on the subject the better. )...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I would re-iterate my point, though, that we understand vastly more about race in the Middle Ages now than we did fifty years ago as a result of the scholarship that I was talking about, despite your reservations about it, and that it is important to recognise that.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @SimonJPTrafford @alvarezjimenezd
50 year ago the definition of "race" was grounded in social science white supremacist pre-Civil Rights methodology. If the scholarship has stuck to this definition, what exactly did we learn? Other than scholars are happy to ignore 50 years of social science scholarship.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
If the discussion basically rehashes debates that social science scholarship left long behind, how is that somehow learning more "about race" rather than keeping the status quo. That status quo meant also white supremacist methodologies. If you are nuancing that, how is that new?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
For example, if you said the same thing about gender, but 50 years ago, people were using the term sex, and we were exactly stuck in those frames of cisgendered, heteronormative, binary, how is that learning a lot since 50 years ago? You just nuanced binary, hetero cis "sex"
-
-
and thus nothing LGBTQIA, nothing past wave 1 of feminism, nothing gender, nothing transgender etc. are in those discussions. So this makes no logical sense to me. And I expect no logical sense for the rest of the social sciences if a field freezes the def. in the 60s.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.