#RaceB4Race A thread on division & specialization of academic intellectual labor (filters are intact): Let's stop reinforcing whyte hegemonic notions of academic disciplines when it comes to premodern race. (I write this as Margo Hendricks/EM Eng lit)
1/
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @Elysabethgrace
I have been very struck by the absence of historians (esp. early modern) in RaceB4Race, but I read that as a history problem. It matters only insofar as disciplinary training gives us different tools, and different questions which are useful & challenging.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @susandamussen
I agree, & with other disciplines. Long story made brief, when a colleague & I organized UCHRI residential group (then titled pre-and early modern studies) on race in 1996, w/ the exception of Ray Kea very little interest among historians.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Elysabethgrace @susandamussen
Even Women, Race & Writing was a difficult sell. Also, for those of us lit folk working w/race premodern, we extensively use "historians" tools to frame our historical/cultural/societal context. I think the "discipline issue" shld be a non-starter w/race.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Last time in September we had Michael Gomez and Marissa Fuentes. They do not work on Europe but the work on critical race.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @dorothyk98 @Elysabethgrace
Yes, I'm really struck by the difference between early modern British history (my home field) and Atlantic world/ colonial Americas historians. European historians have failed to examine the impact of empire enslavement in Europe from the 16th C.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Yes. They invented race and exported it worldwide but white innocence imagines (as the Book European Others explains) that race is not a European thing.
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.