This is a great example of invoking "evolution" to obscure historical specificity for right-wing political purposes.
Slavery has taken various forms over time. Slavery in the Atlantic world -- the legacies of which surround us -- was utterly bound up with empire and capitalism.
Slavery has taken various forms over time. Slavery in the Atlantic world -- the legacies of which surround us -- was utterly bound up with empire and capitalism.
It is not at all "ahistorical" to connect them.
It is, in fact, ahistorical to ignore the historical contexts in which slavery has emerged and to pretend instead that every instance of slavery over time was same, and had the same, non-historical, "evolutionary" causes.
It is, in fact, ahistorical to ignore the historical contexts in which slavery has emerged and to pretend instead that every instance of slavery over time was same, and had the same, non-historical, "evolutionary" causes.
When evopsych fans call an explanation of a historical phenomenon "ahistorical", there's a better than even chance that what they're offering instead is an outright dismissal of historical contexts and processes in favor of some handwaving bullshit about natural behaviour.
*the same
It's the same as when IDW clowns -- I know there's broad overlap between the two categories -- invoke "historical context" in order to make utterly decontextualized and unsubstantiated claims about how "everyone was back then."
The effect is to flatten history into a succession of putatively universal, inescapable mindsets or else a timeless play of "evolutionary" drives, and thus to deny either the fact or the pertinence of specific historical links and legacies -- usually those around race and empire.
It's good to remember -- and it's invariably the case -- that such accounts bring few or no historical details, much less *sources*, to bear. They remain wholly on the plane of speculation, applying half-grasped theory to subjects historians know through sources from the time.
This is not to say there can be no debate about the precise nature or chronology of these relationships; there is and has been.
It is to say that scientistic pronouncements that flatten history and ignore historical sources in the name of "historicity" are a tasteless joke.
It is to say that scientistic pronouncements that flatten history and ignore historical sources in the name of "historicity" are a tasteless joke.
Anyway, related
https://twitter.com/KDPluymers/status/1362067995984551942?s=20
I mean, this is just what I happen to have lying around the office that deals with the subject in one way or another; there’s lots, lots more. These links are neither new nor “ahistorical”, as anyone sincerely interested enough to inform themselves before spouting off would know.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
