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.