Try as I might, I just don’t seem to be able to bring in ‘Classic & post-Classic’ as a global framework ;-) Amanda Power & I conceded ‘medieval’ in this piece to allow comparison & instead focused on trying to decentre ‘globalisation’: https://academic.oup.com/past/article/238/suppl_13/88/5230774 … (free access). 2/2
-
-
Replying to @carolinepennock @monicaMedHist and
As I was quite clear when I tweeted my specific full critique of this introduction, where exactly is global MA anything but a continuation of the white gaze? How can you discuss bottom-up methodology with no discussion of under commons, maroon histories, decolonization, poco etc?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dorothyk98 @monicaMedHist and
I didn’t write that introduction. Perhaps you’d do me the courtesy of reading my actual contribution before commenting?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @carolinepennock @monicaMedHist and
Fair point. The introduction creates a cloud for the entire special issue.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dorothyk98 @monicaMedHist and
There’s certainly a discussion to be had there (tho I think some passages were written in an intended ironic tone which perhaps didn’t translate well to a US ear) but I hope you’d find Amanda & I took a very different approach 1/2
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @carolinepennock @monicaMedHist and
I don't think it was about ironic tone. IT was straight uphold white supremacist frames and completely ignore and erase a lot of the critical scholarship done by non-white scholars. To then decide the defense is "irony" is straight out of postracialism 101.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dorothyk98 @carolinepennock and
This is #4 in Sumi Cho's article on postracialism, the "US" is too sensitive excuse and the racism is an American invention and it's not happening in Europe excuse. So no, they wrote it, there is no irony & there is no excuse for it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dorothyk98 @monicaMedHist and
There was a short passage which I believe was intended ironically/sarcastically. You haven’t even asked which one before jumping to dismiss me. But wd I have written the intro differently? Yes. That’s why I said: take the time to read my own work before throwing around judgments.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @carolinepennock @monicaMedHist and
Is this the intro. or your piece? I am talking about the intro. Though again, the idea that the intro. writers were being ironic and that excuses them, I do not think that is a legitimate defense.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dorothyk98 @monicaMedHist and
The intro. There is one short ironic passage which I think some people have misread. But I’m not going to get into a debate about the intro because, as I said, I don’t think it represents my work or my perspective.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
The entire intro. was littered w/ problems. I tweeted all the passages & comments that were problematic when it came out in one very long twitter thread. So no, it wasn't the one paragraph. And I still do not think a defense of "irony" holds water. But yes, you did not write it.
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.