INTRODUCTION: REALIZING RACE IN THE DIGITAL MILIEU I open my contribution by underscoring the urgent assertion that it is impossible to conceive of “race” as a fnite, even overdetermined, taxonomy of human social experience just as we concede that there is not, and cannot be, a single or fxed defnition of “the digital humanities” (Nyhan, Terras, and Vanhoutte 2013, 7). I make this opening claim as “critical race theory” is a socio- political fashpoint across the USA as that country abandoned Afghanistan while forging a defense alliance with the UK and Australia (AUKUS). In a related vein, the latter has witnessed an explosion of violent Indophobic and anti-Asian violence over the last two decades. I begin with such observations since the digital milieu too has a transnational context, and one that is, moreover, linked to situated, fscal interests. This is perhaps more the case in the digital milieu than in the traditional arts, humanities, and social sciences as the former have had much more time to crystallize into the global, human psyche through both overt and surreptitious networks of domination. It thus behooves dominant sites of the digital humanities (DH) to experience, in Dorothy Kim and Jesse Stommel’s words, a “disruption” wherein: … feminist critical race theory, black, indigenous, and women of color (BIWOC) bodies disrupt the narratives of mainstream white feminism by having voices, by creating counternarratives, by calling out the frameworks of the hegemonic center. Thus, we take … the productive “disruption” in the same vein, to decenter the digital humanities. (2018, 22) Many digital humanists deeply invested in multivocal social justice platforms and projects recognize ambiguity in the term “digital humanities” despite its demonstrated, familiar orientations towards privileging canonical data. Such data, as usual, has been produced by scholars whose lived privileges re-map the exceptionalism of institutional knowledge (straight, white, male, bourgeois, non-disabled, neurotypical). Indeed, in the words of Deepika Bahri, we may interpret this unsurprising characteristic of DH as echoing technology of conquest (Bahri 2017, 97). This ambiguity has been compellingly commented upon in the context of race, gender, and trends of domination by several respected scholars, including, among others, Lisa Nakamura (2002), Amy Race, Otherness, and the Digital Humanities RAHUL K. GAIROLA (MURDOCH UNIVERSITY) CHAPTER FIVE