#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
In medieval history, it is impossible to publish critical race work (this is work that is up to date in the last 5-10 years of social science research on race) in a history journal. They do not have the peer review readers for it nor have the editorial know how to find 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.