Response to Gannon
I would agree with Gannon on his response to the serious academic, and like the author commenter’s, I would try to do so in a witty way and of course, less than 140 characters. I do feel the need to take his side because who doesn’t love a good twitter war? Just this morning on […]
Seriously Academic Blog Post — Anon & Tattooed Professor
I do feel inclined to take a side in this argument, but not without some gentle critique. This criticism is only necessary because we need to stay on the defense constantly if we are to be Serious Academics™. On the fifth page of Gannon’s article he lists the ways his scholarship is relevant to the […]
Halloween Post
If I was one of the people commenting on Gannon’s thread, there’s one line above all else that sold me on his argument over the anonymous post, and that was “If what we do matters, who’s doing it matters even more”. Highlighting the opportunities provided by engaging with peers over new platforms is a great way to make the […]
All-For-One or One-For-All
I found that these articles that we read for today were interesting. Though we had two different sides to the story, I don’t know if I can fully partake and agree with one individual. In my opinion, fighting over academics over social media is a bit… childish and immature. I do agree with the anonymous […]
10/31 Blog Prompt
The first piece we read for today, published by anonymous, creates an oppositional relationship between “serious academics” and “professional Instagrammers” which calls to mind some of the issues of elitism we’ve been discussing in class. However, the subtitle raises the more complex idea that academics are now expected to engage with social media (with no […]
McPherson: Race and DH
As I began the article, I anticipated that McPherson would address issues such as “debates about access to media – that is the digital divide” (McPherson 143). In some ways, I feel as though McPherson is reading too closely into technology as means of a division of race. McPherson presents the question “might we argue […]
McPherson Response
As several others have mentioned within our discussion on Monday, I was not expecting the direction McPherson went based on her title as well as struggling to maintain a steady pace throughout her essay. I found myself losing my place and finding it very difficult to read the essay all the way through in one […]
Response to McPherson
McPherson, in her essay “Why Are the Digital Humanities So White”, took a different approach to comparing race and the DH than I expected. When I read the title, I expected her talk about just who was responsible in establishing and developing DH as a movement and study, but what I came to find was, […]
Racist UNIX?
McPherson argued, “…given that competing modes of computation were still quite viable until the 1960s” (151). Misses the point. Perhaps they were, but the point is the idea of modularity and simplicity was clearly superior to what came before it. It’s easy to forget that computers in this time were severely resource constrained. RAM was […]
From Caterpillars to Mothmen: McPherson and Racism in the DH
McPherson’s entire premise for this essay is essentially to make a pretty strong case that unless the humanities embraces both the technological and old school methodologies for constructing and conducting inquiry and research, the outlook is grim much like the outcome of the upcoming election. Although she spends a fair amount of time discussing race […]
