Dorothy Kim’s response to my 2018 book, The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages, opens with the quotation above, taken from the book itself. In requoting, I’ve emphasized the words thinking critically because most of the articles in this forum see that Invention of Race is scholarship that emerges out of the varied genealogical traditions of critical race theories, even as the book works to remain faithful to the premodern archives with which it transacts—so as to confront head-on, as Amrita Dhar puts it, the “charges of presentism and anachronism” that are invariably visited upon critical scholarship on premodernity.1 Before Invention of Race, euromedievalist work on race largely produced descriptive or taxonomic scholarship (e.g., scholarship that asked who belonged to the “Germanic races” or “Celtic races”), or focused on scrutinizing Muslim, Jewish, or Black characters in literary texts—often, texts of recreational/fantasy literature. Accordingly, the objection raised by the historian William Chester Jordan to discussing race in the European medieval past, in a 2001 issue of the Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies on race and ethnicity, edited by Tom

中文翻译：

---

赛前和赛后：对欧洲中世纪种族发明论坛的回应

Dorothy Kim 对我 2018 年出版的《欧洲中世纪种族的发明》一书的回应以上述引文开头，摘自该书本身。在重新引用时，我强调了批判性思考这些词，因为本论坛中的大多数文章都认为，种族发明是从批判种族理论的各种谱系传统中产生的学术成果，即使这本书致力于保持对前现代的忠实它与之交易的档案——正如 Amrita Dhar 所说，直面“现代主义和时代错误的指控”，这些指控总是受到关于前现代性的批判性学术研究的访问。1 在种族发明之前，欧洲中世纪主义关于种族的工作主要产生描述性或分类学奖学金（例如，询问谁属于“日耳曼种族”或“凯尔特人种族”的奖学金），或专注于审查文学文本中的穆斯林、犹太人或黑人角色——通常是娱乐/幻想文学的文本。因此，历史学家威廉·切斯特·乔丹（William Chester Jordan）在 2001 年出版的关于种族和民族的中世纪和早期现代研究杂志（Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies on race and ethnicity）中提出反对讨论欧洲中世纪过去的种族问题，汤姆编辑