#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 @Elysabethgrace
Historians are also reluctant to do CRT in the premodern because of “anachronism”. They also don’t look at our texts as evidence whereas we are always consulting their archive.
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
And then how few BIPOC scholars in history there are... and then do they do critical race.... so if one wants to use an analogy, it is as if one field area decided to base all their gender work on definitions of 1950s gender (sex)—so cisgendered, binary, etc. why would 2/
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @dorothyk98 @DrDadabhoy and
To AAIHS or critical ethnic studies conference... that is the standard. So yes send your scholars who do critical race but they have to be conversant in the discussions of critical race now. This by the way theoretically means we are in the material turn (biopolitics etc.).
7 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
Also for RaceB4Race we believe in centering BIPOC scholars. So are they BIPOC scholars. This cuts the numbers down dramatically. History’s training (unlike religious studies-so beside lit.,) has been hostile to up to date methodology in social sciences.
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.