Anglo-Saxon Attitude

[steepholm]

I had no idea until today that the word "Anglo-Saxon" was in any way controversial. Apparently it's because I hang out in the wrong part of the internet.

Anyway, I learned from a colleague that "Anglo-Saxon" has been co-opted by white supremacists in America, and that because of this there are demands that the term be dropped by scholars (e.g. historians of Britain between 500-1100C.E.) generally. My colleague is writing about just that period, and is having difficulty finding acceptable alternatives.

Is that a fair summary of the situation, or am I missing important context?

I feel fairly conflicted. On the one hand, if a term is being used by racists I'd rather avoid it, to avoid a) giving them credibility and b) appearing racist myself.

On the other hand...

a) I'm not sure what alternative terms are both available and widely understood.
b) Racists have also adopted terms such as "English" and "British," but there's no demand to drop them: why is this different? (Also, letting racists effectively dictate what words can be used seems like a kind of capitulation.)
c) There seems something imperialist in the idea that because something is unacceptable in the USA it must be so throughout the world. (I was sad to read that the Japanese government intended to efface the swastika symbol from tourist maps - where it indicates a Buddhist temple - because it might be misinterpreted by Westerners. Isn't this similar?)

Anyway, I'm sure neither of the facts nor of my own opinion, so I'd appreciate any help in clarifying either.

Comments

[green_knight]

a) I think re-examining the use of the term, and the use of our understanding of that period of history is a Good Thing - it's all about exploring connections, self-image, how much 'culture' came from invaders/traders/people already settled - a lot of that history as generally understood is very invested in clear demarcation lines, and I'm sure that actual history was a lot messier. At the same time, 'Anglo-Saxon' will probably remain useful shorthand.

b) the swastika is SUCH a loaded symbol, and personally, I welcome its eradication: it was an (unintended, but still) punch in the gut every time I saw one of those maps, and places that used other symbols felt much more welcoming. Even *knowing* its local importance/history, I cannot suppress my gut reaction, and I did not lose any family member in the holocaust, I'm merely a person who occasionally edits books on it. For me, not using it is the same courtesy as removing references to 'lame', 'blind' and 'stupid' ' from my vocabulary, *knowing* that those terms/phrases hurt others.

[calimac]

I read a fascinating book called The swastika: symbol beyond redemption? by Steven Heller, which covers its history and usage. And Heller's answer to the question is: yes, it's beyond redemption, at least for now.

[steepholm]

Yes, I agree that re-examination of one's language is generally a good idea, and should be an ongoing project, as words gain and lose meaning and nuance (which happens whether one personally approves or not).

Courtesy was of course the motive for taking the symbol from maps, and I of course understand it, especially in the Westerner-facing, customer-service context of tourism. (As far as I am aware there has been no move to remove it from temples themselves.) I do feel more ambivalent about this than you, though. It seems to grant a posthumous power to the Nazis, to decide that their use of the symbol trumps that of two major world religions (mostly followed by non-white people) which have been using it for millennia, and I'm loath to cede them that authority.

[jadelennox]

My impressions is that it's totally fine to refer to Angles and Saxons as "Anglo-Saxons". And maybe counting the Jutes? Do Jutes usually come in under Anglo Saxons?

But avoid terms like "Anglo Saxon character of the British Isles" or "White Anglo Saxon Protestant" or generally using it to mean anything that covers "Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Celts, Normans, Bretons, and generally any white people who have lived in the Great Britain for at least four generations."

I'm not sure British scholars need to worry too much about American racist terms, though. I mean, just because the racists have co-opted Vikings doesn't mean Scandinavian scholars can't write about Odin. And being careful about not using Anglo-Saxon to mean "white people from great Britain" is something any serious schoar should be doing, anyway.

[steepholm]

The Jutes totally count. I grew up in an area that was largely settle by Jutes, and I've been waiting for some time for someone to write an article about "Jutish erasure" (it hasn't happened yet).

Otherwise, that all seems perfectly sensible - i.e. your middle paragraph lists things it would never occur to me to do!

[calimac]

The difference between "Anglo-Saxon" meaning the people of the 6th through 11th centuries, and "Anglo-Saxon" as a casually-used present-day ethnic identifier is reasonable, and maybe it can be maintained. After all, even "Aryan" is a technical term with a legitimate usage.

The term "WASP" as an abbreviation for White Anglo-Saxon Protestant was a very popular designation in the US in the 1970s through 90s, with a certain derogatory hint to it. But it seems to have dropped since then, and the sociological necessity for distinguishing the specific people from other white Christians of European origin seems to have diminished.

[steepholm]

The Aryan analogy seems a pretty good one.

[legionseagle]

I know the odd Caucasian who's not mad about having to adopt the Orientalist-to-the-max term "Circassian" to avoid their accurate description of their ancestry being simply translated as "White, in cop speak."

[ethelmay]

My main association with the word Circassian is a poem about tiger lilies - "They are Circassian women,/The favorites of the Sultan..." - which for some reason was thought appropriate for children and thus appeared in the Childcraft encyclopedia. It was heady stuff to me at about ten. I had not the least idea what Circassian meant, but it sounded terribly romantic.

[cmcmck]

I'm also from a Jutish area.

[lilliburlero]

As I understood it, the suggestion is that historians drop "Anglo-Saxon" to refer to the period, the language, artefacts and general culture of the 6th-11th centuries in England, the argument being that it originated in dodgy 19th-century conflations of linguistics, cultures and ethnicity, and has always been white-supremacist in effect if not intent. I'm not enough of a historiographer to know how accurate a characterisation this is, though.

I've seen some fairly airy assertions that ceasing to use it in this way could not possibly be a problem, and that it's not a term used by serious scholars anyway, but even I, with no more than a passing interest in the period and language, have quite a few of anthologies and textbooks with "Anglo-Saxon" in the title, so I think it's a wee bit trickier than some people have been making out.

[steepholm]

I’ve just been watching Prof. Alice Roberts and various archaeologists on BBC4 excavating sites from the 6th century, which they refer to as Anglo-Saxon. I guess they haven’t got the memo.

[lilliburlero]

Also the Churches Conservation Trust, which writes to me today offering a tour of "Anglo-Saxon Origins in Hampshire", among other ecclesiastical history delights. Churches themselves are often referred to as "Saxon" (as opposed to "Norman") I note, even in areas that are more Jutish or Angle in settlement. Hampshire is pretty soundly Saxon, though, can't quibble there.

Of course, having had my attention drawn to the issue, I am now seeing what I would have formerly considered benign, entirely historical uses of "Anglo-Saxon" absolutely everywhere. It's going to be very hard to root out, if that's what we end up doing.

[steepholm]

I've yet to see a compelling reason for doing so, and I'm still not clear what we're supposed to be planting in its stead. When, for example, I visit St Laurence's Church in Bradford on Avon, "one of very few surviving Anglo-Saxon churches in England that does not show later medieval alteration or rebuilding," as Wikipedia reminds me, I can't honestly see how that's white-supremacist in either intent or effect.

[thistleingrey]

That seems to me a fair summary. Agreed on (a) especially.

I fear that (b) is partly an issue of not going far enough back in the textual/historical record, which seems especially awkward given the medievalist-centric tempest over A-S as a term. And it seems to me that if one lets racists dictate terms, fairmindedness has lost.

[calimac]

"And it seems to me that if one lets racists dictate terms, fairmindedness has lost."

Yes. During the debate over same-sex marriage, I was asked why not give these couples all the legal benefits but ameliorate the opponents by just not calling it marriage. I responded no: partly because most of them are opposed to the benefits too; and as for the term, I refuse to let the bigots set the agenda.

[tree_and_leaf]

Racists have also adopted terms such as "English" and "British," but there's no demand to drop them: why is this different?

Because the debate is being driven by Americans. /cynic

[cmcmck]

As a Saxon philologist, I have no intention of dropping the term but I'll fight like hell to make sure those scumbags don't get it.