A Look at Ulrike Lindner’s Transnational Perspective

Returning to the discussion of transnational history after a few weeks break a look at some more general readings will be discussed, though our individual research does continues. These readings are presented as insight into different ways in which different historians approached their various topics and in turn give those historians reading these articles a look at what might work and what might not. Ulrike Lindner’s article titled Transnational movements between colonial empires: migrant workers from the British Cape Colony in the German diamond town of Lüderitzbucht is a good example of one of these readings showing how a smaller more confined yet not completely Micro history can be used to highlight what transnational history is through a concise well written though problematic article. His commentary focuses on two colonies, that of the British Cape Colony and the Germany Colony in Lüderitzbucht, in South Africa and how they’re economy, political encounters, and social interactions were effected by a transfer of workers. Though well written with several good points there arises several problems within the article, the first emerging at the very beginning. At the start of the article Lindner outlines what he will be discussing stating that he will be talking about these two colonies by using the term transnational rather than transcolonial or transterritorial. This would have been fine had he gone into further detail as to why or if he had stated that the term transnational was an umbrella term under which these other two terms rested. This then causes problems throughout the paper as he writes on the assumption that because of their actions as people according to their national habits the interactions are transnational. He does not give explains of how these colonies were specifically German and specifically British which is imperative to such a paper, as these people may have changed socially after having moved to Africa. This then affects his argument that because of their social atmosphere the Germans are more likely to treat the native workers harshly and give them less rights than the British do.

Along with this dilemma comes the fact that the author only looks at the minority and race workers in a transcolonial lens, giving very little time to non German and British workers, corrupt workers, woman and children workers, and white workers. He also barely touches on the economic trade between the two colonies having to do with water, food, and other essential commodities which, essential to the livelihood of the workers, were hard to come by in the German Colony but easily found in the British one. Though these problems hinder Lindner’s argument aiding in making a well written work less reliable they do not completely take away from a good case study in the area of transnational history. The author picked a small area to focus on though not too small and not excluding too many people. He then focused on one aspect of that history, the migrating work force, and did his utmost to highlight how these two colonies transnational aspects effected and were effected by these workers. In the end though the article does present several problems it also gives the historian a good example of how one might present the area of transnational history so as not to overwhelm the reader. As I continue further into the research and writing of my own project it is helpful to consider articles such as this one as a good example of a subject given just the right scope under which to have been examined and which gives me as a historian a better grasp on how I might also achieve this.