When I first saw the term “transnational history” on the syllabus, i was excited to learn about such a board history, yet I was and remain sceptical. But through the weeks seminars and particularly after sitting with these articles and case studies (finally) I feel like I’ve had a total “loss of innocence,” as the EUI Global History Seminar Group says, regarding how I see our “connected” world. It turns out that transnationalism isn’t just about breezy travel; it’s actually much more “sticky” and complicated than the narrative we are usually sold.
I really felt for the PhD researchers who described their “bitter taste” (l’amaro in bocca), as the EUI Global History Seminar Group says, after realizing that “Global History” often just replicates old power structures; neo-colonialism being one I view as being very fitting. They were debating these grand ideas while staring at each other from “tiny video-boxes” in their kitchens during lockdown, which is such a perfect, ironic image of our isolated reality. They pointed out that while we talk about being global, we usually just default to “Globish,” as Jeremy Adelman says, which is a simplified version of English that keeps elite “Anglophone centres” in charge while everyone else is pushed to the margins.
One of the moments of clarity for me was the metaphor that Nancy Green says: “webs are sticky and also catch flies”. As someone who has rarely travelled, I always pictured living across borders as a luxury, but for many, it becomes a “legal labyrinth,” as Nancy Green says. I learned about people like Gertrude Moulton, who spent years “drifting about in hotels,”. Then there’s Lily, the Duchess of Mecklenburg, who “lost her US citizenship simply by marrying a foreigner,” as Nancy Green says. In today’s climate, thinking about the US and ICE in particular, discussion and clarity regarding movement between borders is vital. Bringing another link between my interest in international relations and transnational history.
In the current climate, “internationalism” takes on an elitist sentiment; if you’re rich and multi-national have homes in different countries, you’re an ‘expat’, if more an immigrant. This is what made Ad Knotters reading so interesting to me. He discusses how “internationalism” primary involved the labouring class. They were a “wandering” lot who used international networks to stop employers from bringing in “strike-breakers” from other countries. My mother, a Nigerian Immigrant and an ex-NHS nurse faced similar parallels in the 21st Century, another sign as to how vital transnational history is for us now.
Week 4 Blog Post