This is missing the point. It’s a part of history. It obviously had enough purchase in history and linguistics. What kind of historian obfuscates history? And what a feeble, petty reason as “it was not used as prevalenty”. Can you really be intellectually serious?
-
-
Replying to @DomFenucchae @erik_kaars and
Obviously had? No, that's not obvious. You clearly have not read any of the arguments in this debate. Changing a term because of the baggage is not "obfuscating". You seem to have quite a few biases and bad faith motivations, given the far-right content on your account.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Gearoid_Dubh @erik_kaars and
Why are you letting bigots and white supremacist weirdos have the final say over how scholars should, in perpetuity, define terms that originate (without malice) in primary sources? Why grant them that power? Who's really empowering these people? I hope you see your error.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DomFenucchae @Gearoid_Dubh and
Your point is based on the privilege of believing that bigots and "white supremacist weirdos" don't master, aren't a threat, and are "fringe." This is demonstrably untrue
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ShrillHarpy @Gearoid_Dubh and
They are very much a "fringe". We have genuine crime stats to prove that. If you don't think that the power and social purchase of white supremacists has diminished since [insert a year..1900?] I don' know what to say to you. It's not a matter of my "privilege", but an objective
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DomFenucchae @ShrillHarpy and
...reading of reality. You can do this too. Even still, I didn't say that race based vitriol "wasn't important" or "not threatening", it's just that it's inane to imagine that such people have any kind of influence it the scholarly circles you are navigating, or that using...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DomFenucchae @ShrillHarpy and
...these so-called "controversial" terms somehow "empower" them. I mean, what are you seriously afraid is going to happen? In all earnesty, what outcomes do you imagine will result from scholars using these [technically correct] terms in the proper context? These are questions...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DomFenucchae @ShrillHarpy and
....you have to answer if you presume to tell people what they can and can't say. I put it to you that YOU [inadvertently] empower these weirdos by granting them the final say to decide, once and for all, how these terms will be defined. Why invite them into the academy like...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DomFenucchae @ShrillHarpy and
...this? Why dignify their bigotry by having important academic fields organize their terminology/nomenclature around their screed? And in doing so, we declare that a bit or history is now unwritten, unimportant and untouchable. And the rational? "Well its not very important..
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DomFenucchae @ShrillHarpy and
..anyways". This is not worthy of "intellectuals". It's a crime against the intellect.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I’d invite you to read my mentions or those of anyone who’s advocated for a shift (especially scholars of color) in terminology when you say it’s a “fringe movement.” It’s a sea of white nationalism and white people claiming we’re trying to erase their heritage.
-
-
Replying to @erik_kaars @DomFenucchae and
If you want historical accuracy, we would barely use the term anyway. It’s a latin term that was used either by authors outside of England or by a small set of kings. We’re now using the term to refer to a bunch of situations where our sources don’t use it.
3 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @erik_kaars @DomFenucchae and
Nobody has said not to use it when sources use it. We’re not erasing it from Asser’s Vita Alfredi, for instance. But it was a specialized term not unlike the term “Anglecynd,” which no one complains has been “erased” bc scholars don’t regularly use to refer to the early English.
1 reply 5 retweets 12 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
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.