Thanks again, David, for sharing this link.
I am surprised at Andrew's take against the MLA, particularly when I think it's been one of the few larger professional associations to encourage digital methods and discussions about DH. (It is also tragically funny that as an example of how the MLA is "the smallest and most self-absorbed of worlds" he refers to 'Occupy MLA', which was in fact revealed nothing but a 'performative' prank). Calling the MLA a "horrible institution" is indeed very harsh and unjustified. Andrew is right to point out how damaging some of the discourse around DH within MLA circles has been to digital humanities in general, but can the whole association be held responsible for what their members say and publish? Isn't this "horrible institution" Andrew is talking about tenure and the phenomenon of contingent faculty? It seems to me that is the case.
I think the post holds well without the first two paragraphs, though. Andrew is spot on in noticing that indeed there is a danger "that DH becomes one of the means by which an Anglophone globalization of world culture is implemented."