Re: SCS controversy, etc.

For whatever it might be worth, I don’t know that Padilla Peralta’s ideas are entirely without merit.  I think there is a case to be made for inclusion, scholarship, and yes even the hiring of scholars coming from groups that traditionally have not been welcomed or engaged with Classical studies.  Padilla Peralta’s background, experiences, and viewpoints are certainly going to differ dramatically from my own even when studying the same material, and that’s valuable.  So, again for whatever it might be worth, I don’t think the argument that Padilla Peralta’s race and ethnicity should be taken into account in his hiring is necessarily detrimental to the field or overall scholarship.

With that said, as Mark points out, that’s not exactly what Padilla Peralta has argued.  What precisely separates “Afro-Latinity” from “Western Civilization” as an artificial construct?  The idea that the Classics should be cognizant of and taken responsibility for the constructs that have been built around our work is one I wholeheartedly agree with, and this seemed to have been Sarah Bond’s point at the SCS panel.  Padilla Peralta, however, seems to be arguing for something of a “cultural pissing contest”, wherein his artificially constructed culture and ethnicity deserves recognition because of its marginalization, but others do not.  Viewing the original panel and the transcripts that have emerged, I don’t know that he’s helped Bond’s case in arguing that abuses need to be recognized for the Classics to grow and become inclusive, versus what has become Williams’ rallying cry, that a significant body of scholars still function within a bubble of valorization regarding the field.

-Aaron IRvin



From: Mark Davidson
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 12:16
To: [email protected]
Subject: [CLASSICS-L] SCS controversy, etc.

I have no sympathy with Mary Frances Williams or her views whatsoever, but
that doesn't mean I have to agree with Dan-el Padilla Peralta either.

Padilla Peralta wrote in his Medium article:

"While also well intentioned, compliments for 'grace' and 'composure' under
fire only serve to underscore the domestication of brown bodies..."

So he's complaining because he was complimented for grace and composure and
maintaining his dignity.

But what if people had said the opposite? What if they had said that he
should rather have showed anger and started shouting? Then he would be
complaining that he was being urged to fit a stereotype because he's black.

What if everyone had studiously avoided saying anything to him? Then he
would be complaining that his decent behaviour was ignored because of his
race.

In fact, is there anything whatsoever that people could have said or
refrained from saying that he wouldn't somehow twist into victimhood? Just
wondering.

Later in his article he says something that made me do a double-take and
then a face palm. He says:

"I *should* have been hired because I was black: because my Afro-Latinity
is the rock-solid foundation upon which the edifice of what I have
accomplished and everything I hope to accomplish rests; because my black
body’s vulnerability challenges and chastizes the universalizing
pretensions of color-blind classics; ... That scholarly merit can, even in
the minds and hearts of supporters and well-wishers, be decoupled from the
fact of my Afro-Latinity is why the rage will continue to burn brightly."

Um... so he's angry because he *wasn't* hired because he's black? He says
he was hired on merit, but he's angry because of this - he *should* have
been hired merely because he's black.

I have to wonder why, in that case, he found Mary Frances Williams'
suggestion that he was hired because he was black insulting?

There seems to be an utter lack of logic to what he is saying. But perhaps
we should all just smile and nod, and give him a pass... because he's
black...


I also wasted my time reading the introduction to the book that Dan
Tompkins recommended, The Rule of Moderation by Ethan H. Shagan.

Far from being ground-breaking, it seems to me that the author's arguments
are trivially true.

He says that a certain degree of variation in religion, culture, etc. was
tolerated, but the state came down hard on anything outside those limits.

So what? Moderation doesn't mean anarchy. All states have laws and limits
and repress people who act outside those limits.

The moderation of 16th and 17th century England lay in the wide range that
was tolerated - far wider than practically any other country at the time.
Any number of examples of the state harshly repressing things outside that
range go to prove nothing new.

Mark D