Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #shear2020
Most recents (8)
One needs to understand that Confederate heritage apologists aren't really interested in the past.
They are interested in a usable past to serve present needs.
They also see heritage as ultimately about themselves.
They are interested in a usable past to serve present needs.
They also see heritage as ultimately about themselves.
Listen as they talk about "we" and "us" and "you." It's not about the past. It's about a construct of the past that makes one feel good about one's ancestors (and not all of them have Confederate ancestors) and justifies one's present beliefs.
This is one reason they decry "revisionist history" and "political correctness." They imagine that an "objective" rendering of the past would confirm their belief system.
I loves me some academic tempests in a teapot. nytimes.com/2020/07/24/art…
More #SHEAR2020
"The rush to pen departmental and institutional statements of solidarity demonstrated that our existing registers of address were not yet sufficient to the demands of the movement." -@RyanCecilJobson doing what @RyanCecilJobson does. Must read of the day.
The idea of the "contingent project of the human" is something Kai and I have been thinking alot about in light of reparations.
But anyone who does want to "abandon ethnography and become a historian" as the field burns should be encouraged. History is the physics of the humanities and social sciences. Those that don't do the meta work on their own disciple aren't really serious about that discipline.
1/ A few thoughts on the #SHEAR2020 panel of last week.
It seems to me that we're talking about 3 separate things here:
1. The tone of the paper
2. The content of the paper
3. The publicity of the paper -- & the panel.
Each deserves some thought.
It seems to me that we're talking about 3 separate things here:
1. The tone of the paper
2. The content of the paper
3. The publicity of the paper -- & the panel.
Each deserves some thought.
2/ First: the tone
I KNOW that some historians reading this tweet have been publicly slammed inappropriately & personally during conference panels. I certainly have--more than once.
It's unnecessary, unprofessional, pointless, & says far more about the slammer than the slammee
I KNOW that some historians reading this tweet have been publicly slammed inappropriately & personally during conference panels. I certainly have--more than once.
It's unnecessary, unprofessional, pointless, & says far more about the slammer than the slammee
3/ Panel-ambushing also tends to elevate loud senior voices at the expense of less loud, less senior, more marginalized voices. Zoom exposed this in all its ugliness (see more on Zoom below).
This is NOT how we should work.
We need to be better--& hold each other to account.
This is NOT how we should work.
We need to be better--& hold each other to account.
I understand and applaud the call for more diverse panels and perspectives, which is a running theme in criticism of #SHEAR2020.
I also think it's important to specify what those voices would contribute. Presence is necessary but not sufficient.
I also think it's important to specify what those voices would contribute. Presence is necessary but not sufficient.
It's useful to remember that what began as a deep dive into the ways people view Jackson today (with the usual nods to memory, media, remembering, forgetting, distorting) became something else and then something else again.
The session lost its way.
The session lost its way.
There are many valid criticisms and differing perspectives about what was said, but perhaps this was because it became a flawed seminar in historiography, where those voices needed to be heard. I don't think that was the original purpose of the session.
Having now reviewed the Zoom of the #SHEAR2020 session, and with much of yesterday's Twitter commentary in mind, I can see several issues worth considering.
First, it's a good idea to review the session before making generalizations about it based on Twitter commentary alone. I had caught some of the feed yesterday, including the offensive language used by one participant at the end.
Second, I did see senior scholar pushback, delivered in the way one might expect at a civil professional meeting. But it's there. Twitter can be a far more blunt instrument.
That said, I understand why people were offended by various statements. So was I.
That said, I understand why people were offended by various statements. So was I.
FWIW ... on #SHEAR2020
1. I don't think the idea of the plenary was a bad one, detracted from the identity of the people on the panel. What Andrew Jackson means today to people is an interesting issue. That's about historical memory.
1. I don't think the idea of the plenary was a bad one, detracted from the identity of the people on the panel. What Andrew Jackson means today to people is an interesting issue. That's about historical memory.
2. I say that because all too often people talk about historical figures as if they know something about them and that other people do, too, so that's why you bring them up.
Most Americans actually know very little about Andrew Jackson. Surprise!
Most Americans actually know very little about Andrew Jackson. Surprise!
So to see the man on the $20 bill brought up in ways that are superficial, etc., doesn't surprise me. Historians know a lot about Jackson and why he's problematic.
Although I did not watch the #SHEAR2020 plenary live, my Twitter feed alerted me to a vibrant discussion about it.
I did watch parts of it until it was taken down.
There are a lot of questions to be answered. Let me raise a few that haven't been so extensively discussed.
I did watch parts of it until it was taken down.
There are a lot of questions to be answered. Let me raise a few that haven't been so extensively discussed.
Whether or not one wants to classify Andrew Jackson as a military hero, there is little doubt that his exploits in uniform against Native Americans, the British at New Orleans, and his invasion of Florida gave him a high profile.
There were other military notables: Winfield Scott and Oliver Hazard Perry ... and Old Tippicanoe himself, William Henry Harrison and ichard M. Johnson. In the case of Jackson, Harrison, and Johnson, a large part of that reputation was made fighting indigenous peoples.
