Medieval twitter meltdown

[Wahoo Redux]

Some may wonder why there are no scholars listed that advocate to keep the term [Anglo-Saxon] in use. There is no justifiable reason to keep the term in use if you care about correct terminology, scholarly accuracy, and ethical scholarship. This isn't a both-sides argument.

This is from Rambaran-Olms' "Part 3" of her "Resources on the Problematic Term "Anglo-Saxon," and it strikes me as very emblematic of the whole discussion of racial politics.  This is not discussion or even debate, it is simple declaration. 

There IS actually debate:

The campaign quickly degenerated to slurring anyone who disagreed with these changes as 'racist', and anyone making a qualifying statement, or correcting or disputing the bases and framing of the debate, as an apologist to the racist uses of the term 'Anglo-Saxon'. Online proclamations declared that scholars must signal their commitment to change by removing the term 'Anglo-Saxon' from their writings and courses, as well as to 'cancel' those scholars who might wish to persist in using the term.

And I noticed that Rambaran-Olm's review linked to a number of other essays, all of them taking issue with some version of pop-culture----everything from the new West Side Story to hip-hop----that had been misappropriated and eventually displayed some level of racism (I simply put "racism" into the Google search function in each blog post and found anywhere from 2 to 7 uses of the noun per post).  For some reason I cannot access them now----probably because I do not have an account with Medium.

I think the point is (and I am quoting someone from the old Fora, I believe) for some people everything will be about race, and for some people a disagreement or an opposite viewpoint, or even the willingness to discuss race, is a sign of racism.  One must agree or be labeled at the best ignorant or at the worst a racist.

[Mobius]

One aspect I find interesting is Rambaran-Olm's statement that the lack of footnotes is evidence of white privilege. White scholars can get by with not citing their sources because they are presumed to be authoritative in ways that minority scholars would not be, is the reasoning as I understand it.

I don't understand why the Los Angeles Review of Books would commission a review (the replacement review) from someone who had already reviewed the book for another outlet (Slate). I'd guess that someone forgot to check, but heads will roll.

The claim that they are all in cahoots because the authors and the reviewer have the same agent is pretty weak. I guess the implication is that the agent pressured the reviewer to give a good review to his other client's book? I think it's very unlikely that the agent even knew the reviewer was taking on this review; the compensation for writing reviews is too minuscule for agents to pay attention.

Most scholars in the field would not touch the entire fracas with a ten-foot pole.

Probably the most publicity the Los Angeles Review of Books has gotten in many a long year.

My favorite are scholars wading in on Twitter. It's just a nerd fight at some point.

[mamselle]

Kalamazoo starts tomorrow.

I'm unclear if I'll be free to attend the seminar I mentioned upthread; I may have a rescheduled student at that point.

I'm hoping I can, but, <<on ne sais jamais....>>

M.

[Wahoo Redux]

Peeps here are a little gun shy about dealing with the politics (and bad writing) of this review (and it is understandable considering the relatively small number of bodies typing on the Fora) but Reddit is not so shy.  Their thread on The Bright Ages is sometimes ridiculous, sometimes really funny, sometimes ad hom, and sometimes right on target with some pointed by intelligent critique.

Should "The Bright Ages" Be Pulped For Its Racism, Or Merely Burned In Village Squares Nationwide?

I think Rambaran-Olm may have failed to convince people of the validity of her message.

Interestingly, the Slate review of the book appears to come to many of the same conclusions as Rambaran-Olm but with a more balanced critique.

[bacardiandlime]

Interestingly, the Slate review of the book appears to come to many of the same conclusions as Rambaran-Olm but with a more balanced critique.

The "Slate Review" is the one by the same scholar who wrote the other review published in LARB.

[Wahoo Redux]

Interestingly, the Slate review of the book appears to come to many of the same conclusions as Rambaran-Olm but with a more balanced critique.

The "Slate Review" is the one by the same scholar who wrote the other review published in LARB.

Ah. Got'cha.  I didn't follow that.

[downer]

I read the book. Well, listened to it.

It was OK -- nothing very earth shaking. It looks at standard approaches and goes a little beyond them, saying "It's complicated." Duh. I didn't learn a lot new. Arguably, the whole concept of "The Bright Ages" isn't well formulated and the book is a hodge-podge of different ideas.

After reading the book, it's clear that Rambaran-Olm's critical review was totally spoiling for a fight, and mostly unreasonable. Rambaran-Olm would have written a different book, and criticizes the authors for not making the points she would have made.