Project Proposal: Individual Migration and African National Liberation

From 1957-1975 the political landscape of Africa transformed as national liberation movements gradually facilitated the nations’ independence from colonial rule. The contribution of individuals who would become prominent African leaders in bolstering support for post-war anti-colonialist movements has been recognised; however, to fully understand their ideological influence, it is important to explore the lives of these individuals in their pre-war, colonial context. This context is not a purely national one as these individuals were part of a complex pattern of movement across the diaspora. Therefore, this project will explore the impact of the experience of migration on the national liberation leaders of mid-twentieth century Africa. It will argue that the common experience of travelling in a colonial context had a significant impact on the conception of African identity that these figures formed.  This allowed for a network to emerge in which African political thinkers could exchange ideas and experiences, thus contributing to a transnational ideology. Finally, this project will show the ways in which these migrant political figures renegotiated the ideology inspired by this experience in order to suit the needs of their particular nation and achieve the goal of independence.

This project will use a comparative approach to assess the experience of migration upon African liberation leaders. In particular it will examine the lives of Kwame Nkrumah and Jomo Kenyatta, the first presidents of Ghana and Kenya respectively. These figures are important in comparison as they do not share a background, yet they move along a similar trajectory, undertaking significant study abroad. In 1935 Nkrumah began a period of ten years in the United States, studying sociology and anthropology, with a specific interest in socialist philosophy. He also became heavily involved in the Pan-African movement. He moved to London in 1945 where he continued his Pan-African activities, significantly organising the 1945 Pan-African Congress in Manchester, before returning to Ghana. Kenyatta began his studies in the Soviet Union, exposing him to the socialist ideology that fascinated Nkrumah. He then moved to London in 1934 in which he also became an active member of the Pan-African movement. The existence of an intellectual network can be seen through these two individuals as Kenyatta was also an organiser of the 1945 Pan-African Congress, demonstrating the points of connection that occurred outside of Africa.

Focusing on political figures will give access to a number of sources as the figures studied were renowned intellectuals. This will allow me to trace the threads of ideology through their bodies of work in order to see how ideas developed over time and over space. It also allows us to see links between various political leaders based on a comparison of the countries they were published in. A particularly useful source will be Jomo Kenyatta’s Facing Mount Kenya as it provides a contrast to broad political scope provided by Nkrumah, as an anthropological study of the Kikuyu people, to whom Kenyatta belonged. Its significance to this project is in the fact that it was written in 1938. This means that it can provide a potential insight into Kenyatta’s conception of his own Kenyan identity during his period abroad, which can be used to draw conclusions on how the migration experience may have affected him.  Complimenting these sources is a wide ranging historiography. The traditional view of this period, argued by R.F. Holland, is that the economic prosperity of Africa between 1939-1945, meant that a contrast emerged between a continent that had been dependent on Europe and one that could thrive independently. This demonstrates the weakening colonial relationship that allowed the ideologies of independence leaders to take root.  However, Frederick Cooper acknowledges that this tradition ignores the trajectories between colonising Europe and colonised Africa. These trajectories created a space in which concepts such as socialism could be engaged with and contested. Therefore, this study will follow on from Cooper’s work in attempting to situate African nationalism in the context of how these movements were shaped by an Africa-Europe political and cultural exchange. It will also move beyond the colonial framework to examine the American node of this transnational network as African-American scholars were at the forefront of the Pan-African movement.

In changing the historical perspective of national liberation leaders in order to view them as migrants, it is possible to remove them from the constraints of their national history. This reveals a complex process of negotiation between national identity and broader trends in international politics as the ideologies of these figures were formed through transfers that stemmed from transnational experience. This transnational perspective then allows us to enlarge the scale of the study as it enables us to see cross-cultural exchanges that link the growth of nationalism in different African countries through tracking the people who shaped it.

Regla de Ochá and Cultural Communities

Regla de Ochá (Santería) is a religion with a rich history, a history that began in slave quarters and now thrives in black communities across the Americas. I will be examining the formation of communities around Regla de Ochá in Cuba and the ways in which Regla de Ochá contributed to modern Afro-Caribbean culture. Beginning with the religion’s emergence in the seventeenth century, Regla de Ochá served as a cohesive force for slaves of the Spanish empire. The first santeros were trafficked West Africans working on plantations in Cuba. However, as the popularity of this religion grew, the remaining fragments of Cuba’s native population were also incorporated into these faith communities. Forced to hide their faith to avoid harsh reprisals from Spanish overlords, slaves attributed Catholic saints to their own spirits and were therefore able to preserve their beliefs behind a façade of Christian devotion. Historical transnationalism is evident in that syncretization of Catholicism and the Orichá-based West African faiths; slaves in the Spanish Caribbean were the intersection of Spanish, African and indigenous Cuban cultural influences, and they formed their own identity from that cultural amalgamation.

I propose that these communities of Regla de Ochá formed the seeds of modern Cuban culture. I will trace the development of these communities from their conception through to the 21st century, focusing on how doctrine and practice have been shaped by varying degrees of influence from Spain and West Africa. Beginning with the formation of the first ilés, I will study how the house of worship serves as the foundation for communities of practitioners and how it was the brewery of Afro-Caribbean culture. Through linguistic evidence, I will trace the effect of Spanish Catholicism in the religious and cultural practices of these communities. Through the examination of oral traditions, primarily religious chants and music, it is possible to demonstrate the modern influence of Regla de Ochá in dispersed Afro-Caribbean communities across the western hemisphere as well. Religious communities serve in large part as preservers of cultural history; it is the santeros and oriates that have most closely held the traditions of their ancestors, and it is their memories and experiences that most clearly articulate the centrality of Regla de Ochá in many communities. By tracing the history of the Lucumí, the heterogeneous group that makes up the majority of practitioners, it is possible to comprehend the effects of Spanish Catholic and West African influence on the development of a unique sociocultural group with its own distinct norms and traditions. Impossible to separate entirely from the imperial and enslaved agents of their past, the Lucumí represent a truly transnational population, within which religious and cultural identity far supersedes any nationalism.

Andrés I. Pérez y Mena has proposed focusing on the significance of these religious centers in the lives of enslaved peoples rather than the domination of imposed European structures of power; by approaching communities from this internal perspective, we are better able to understand how religion came to be the center point of slave life and how it continues to be a critical institution for many thousands of lives today. Among religious historians and anthropologists, the study of Regla de Ochá and other similar belief systems is necessarily interdisciplinary, as a thorough understanding of religions requires a proper understanding of its practitioners. However, anthropological and ethnological studies will be important only to the contextualization of this research; the primary focus of this project is the history of the communities and people surrounding the practice of Regla de Ochá. James Houk and Abrahim Khan discuss the formation of a cultural identity from a primarily religious identity and how interactions between cultural trends and religious ideology form distinct patterns of self-identification. This secondary literature supplements oral accounts of practitioners, religious traditions and observations of outsiders (especially of Spanish overseers in the early days of Regla de Ochá). Thus my research will be a hybridization of primary source analysis and secondary literature, a comingling that aptly represents the interwoven strands of identity and practice in Regla de Ochá.

The Small Beginnings of my Transnational Project

After approximately 500,000 widely varied, hardly developed ideas, none of which particularly excited, I think I have finally come up with two potential focusses for my project, which is fortunate given the impending presentation and proposal deadline. Having originally been researching the Prague Spring and immigration patterns resulting from this, I had been doing some background research on Czechoslovakia, in particular the political situation in the aftermath of the creation of the state. Here the presence of the ‘German Social Democrat Workers Party in the Czechoslovak Republic’ interested me: the activity of a political party specifically catering for one nationality’s interests within the borders of a separate nation state highlights how the framework of the nation state is insufficient when considering areas where national boundaries are regularly changed. Czechoslovakia was a hugely heterogenous area, and a cohesive sense of a ‘Czechoslovak national identity’ didn’t exist, with Germans outnumbering Slovaks. There were huge economic disparities between regions but this was the only one of the successor states in which democracy flourished in the interwar period. The presence of several parties in Czechoslovakia representing national interests outside of the nation itself enjoying popular support and yet the democratic system flourishing within is I believe worth further study. However from here I came across another potential avenue for my project. Looking for potential institutions and sources to start my research from, I moved from looking at the German Social Democrat Workers Party in the Czechoslovak Republic to the international organisation ‘Labour and Socialist International.’ This got me looking at the relations between various working class parties around Europe, in particular at comparative studies between the German Social Democrats and the British Labour Party. Much of (at least on the anglophone side) the analysis of the relation between these two has been of how much the British Labour Party has been shaped by the Social Democrats. I think there is room here to look at a potentially reciprocal relationship, or to look at the impact of international collectives of political parties and their influence on various Labour parties in the early post First World War period. Obviously there is quite a divergence here between my first and second ideas, although there may end up being some way to reconcile them. Overall my feelings are that sources will be far easier to find on my second idea due to the larger historiography that exists of  British and German political parties, and due to the language difficulty of finding sources in Czech, although I feel my first idea might be more rewarding due to its more original angle.

Endless Amount of Questions

As I work on my project proposal for tomorrow, I am still facing fundamental issues with finding the appropriate or ideal topic. The past six weeks has given me a seemingly strong basis of Transnational History, its reach, abilities, short comings etc… and I’ve really enjoyed how refreshing and innovative the class has been especially as my time at St Andrews comes to a close.  While I am probably falsely confident in understanding the transnational approach, I am much less confident in putting it into practice.

I originally took this class because of a book I read last semester in my 20th century German Identity course, Between Yesterday and Today by Christian Bailey. The book covers the initial process and interest of European Integration from the German perspective from 1920-1950. I have studied this period of German history heavily, but never this unique element. This book prompted my new interest in European Integration and the forming/creation of the European identity. For my project this semester, I would ideally like to focus on one or multiple European cities, and how their unique mix of identities, cultures and histories have constituted them as European capitals complimenting or even superseding their regional or national identities.

As I have started to pin down more specifics of my topic, a few issues have surfaced. The topic of European Integration is and was a quite complex and multi-faceted process and finding the appropriate narrowed focus is important. I want to avoid writing a teleologically history of Europe’s transformation into what we see now. I also want to challenge myself to look beyond just western cities and find the connections that tie them to the far reaching eastern parts of the continent.

In addition, Konrad’s post on sources has raised a lot of important issues for me and my area of study. Since my time at university I have become extremely passionate about German history and culture. I look to further this interest in Grad School and/or my profession. The language barrier has already presented numerous issues for multiple modules I have taken at St Andrews, most notably in choosing my dissertation topic. Until I am fluent in the language, I am unsure of which path to take. It is extremely frustrated to be inhibited my language. Am I realistically unable to cover or even touch on the histories of places and spaces that have no textual english evidence. I know it will be a problem I will continue to face, but I am determined to find ways of overcoming my hindrance.

When Things Start to Come Together

In last week’s blog post I wrote about the difficulties I had finding the sort of sources I would need to get kick-started on my project. My topic, whilst not yet clearly defined, revolves around the fact that welfare states in Europe all evolved at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, and influenced one another. At school I remember being fascinated by the way in which the Liberal social reforms in Britain at the start of the twentieth century had taken so much inspiration from Otto von Bismarck’s welfare system in Germany, a country they would be at war with in less than a decade. When prompted to choose a topic for our projects in this module, my mind immediately went back to the relationship between the social reforms which took place in Europe and the ideas which flowed across borders. The thought of carrying out a project on this was exciting, it could lead to so many things. I could explore the ideas shared amongst policy-makers, not just in Germany and Britain but elsewhere in Europe and the rest of the world. It would also be interesting to look at the wider public attitudes towards welfare reforms and the impact they had on individuals. The problem I had is that I didn’t really have a clear point from which to start. I have read numerous secondary sources by historians that provide brief details about the ideas shared between nation states, particularly the impact Bismarckian reforms had on the New Liberals in Britain, before going elsewhere without really expanding on these connections. Then,  I had a slight ‘bingo’ moment. Reading Marvin Rintala’s account of the creation of the National Health Service in Britain, I thankfully stumbled across what he had to say about the role of David Lloyd George in the Liberals’ push for welfare reforms. He stresses the importance of a particular visit Lloyd George took to Germany in 1908, where as Chancellor, he was inspired enough by the German system to take some of its ideas back to Britain with him. Finally, I had a solid instance where ideas were shared across borders. Yet, advancing from here could prove difficult. This is an area of history I had always assumed had been well written about, yet my struggle to find any reference to these transnational links has proved me wrong. The only histories I am finding are those written from an insular perspective, e.g. the rise of the British welfare state or the rise of the German welfare state. Finding written evidence for the points at which ideas cross borders is proving difficult, largely due to the fact it has barely been touched upon by historians and finding relevant primary sources is harder than I had previously imagined. However, I found the comments made on my previous post extremely useful as it has led me down the direction of exploring historiographies and as a method of discovering wider processes outside of national histories. Although I’m not completely sure of the specific details of my project yet, I’m optimistic that the direction I’m going to take is becoming much clearer.

Unexpected Discoveries

A challenge I have found when doing my own research is where to find sources. I began with a few books from the library and then scoured the footnotes, writing down any titles that seemed to be of relevance or made interesting points. One of which was the article ‘Mapping an Empire: Cartographic and Colonial Rivalry in Seventeenth-Century Dutch and English North America’ by Benjamin Schmidt, that I am going to discuss within this article.

05_01_000228
British Imperial Map, 1886

For many thinking about the history of maps, it is the British Imperial map of 1886 that is referred to, mainly because of the grandeur and power symbolised within this map. It has increasingly become the icon when addressing the subject of maps especially when studying Imperial maps and the advance of scientific cartography. This is most likely because, when at it’s peak, Britain possessed almost a third of the world’s land surface and a quarter of the world’s population. I also will not dispute the fact that I have only ever attended British educational institutes, so there is an immediate bias to my learning. However, what the article brought to my attention, was that in the early modern period and especially the 17th Century, it was Dutch cartography that flourished. Many of the maps, globes and atlases produced in the Dutch Republic were of such high quality that they were produced in multiple languages (including Latin) and then distributed throughout Europe (554) and that British equivalents were merely imitations.

I have often found that when studying the history of maps, something that as a geographer is done less often than you might think, we skip from the 1500’s, with the introduction of longitude and latitude, briefly through the 1600’s with the evolution of the world map drawn with two hemispheres to the 1900’s and the introduction of the colonial map drawn using scientific understanding and the focus remains upon Britain mapping her colonies. Yet within the 17th century, England had relatively little experience in engraving, printing and disseminating maps, meaning that they could not compete with the cartographic trade coming from Amsterdam. (563) This is especially important when the Dutch Republic and England were fighting over control for a section of America that ultimately became New York. Moreover, it is important to understand the importance of Dutch maps in influencing map-making within a European context and what became of the British Imperial Map.

Initially, a map of ‘New Netherland’, in America, possessed recognisable Dutch names and therefore, geography supported the idea that this territory must be within Dutch possession. Because, of the cartographic power of the Dutch Republic and the fact that the English version of the maps of ‘New England’ were inferior, many then supported the Dutch claim that this territory belonged to them. (551-63) Even the English equivalent, produced during the early years of English control (1664-1674) was based upon Dutch model’s and borrowed decorative models from the Dutch series by Jansson-Visscher.

Allard_Restitutio
Restitutio-Allard, 1673

Yet the English equivalent pales significantly in comparison to Restitutio-Allard, which appeared after the Dutch recapture of the colony in 1673. The map’s ornate cartouche coupled with the famous “Restitutio” view of New Amsterdam lavishly declares the restoration of Dutch power. With the depictions of Athena, Hermes and the Maiden of Holland, this is one of the finest examples of 17th century cartographic art and emphasises how easily the Dutch could out-map the English. (568-70)

There are many similarities between the “Restitutio” map of 1673 and the Imperial map of 1886 that highlight the influence that Dutch cartography had within the world of map-making and global politics.

 

References:

Schmidt, B. (1997). Mapping an Empire: Cartographic and Colonial Rivalry in Seventeenth-Century Dutch and English North America. The William and Mary Quarterly, 54(3), pp.549-578.

Reading Werner and Zimmermann in Conjunction with developing a Project Idea

For this week’s blog post, I would like to give an update on my ideas for the Project with reference to Werner & Zimmermann’s article on histoire croisée (Title: ‘Beyond Comparison: Histoire Croisée and the Challenge of Reflexivity,’ available on shared Google drive). As I have come to think that transnational history is as much a ‘way of seeing’ as a methodology, it is useful to outline certain characteristics that make TH distinctive. A word of warning before we begin, however, as I am mindful of how at least some members of our class are strongly against jargon-loaded writing, because you’ll find Werner and Zimmermann’s article full of them.

W & S’ article takes us back to our focus in the first few weeks to come up with a competent definition of TH, or at least its defining features. We know that it seeks to do away with the ‘nation-state’ as the basic unit of analysis (unlike the study of international relations), we also know that it is about crossing national boundaries. Yet, how can it differentiated from ‘comparative history’ or ‘transfer studies’? What are the similarities and differences? To begin with, the three genres already mentioned belong to the family of ‘relational’ approaches. What makes histoire croisée special though, so W & S think, is its ‘focus on empirical intercrossings consubstantial with the object of study, as well as on the operations by which researchers themselves cross scales, categories and viewpoints.’ To re-state it in a less mind-boggling or convoluted way, TH is about being aware of the object of study, the position of the observer, and the relationship between the two. At least that’s how I understand it. A diagram may do a better job of conceptualising this:

diagram

A few interesting points:

1. A possible way to differentiate between comparative history and transnational history is the idea of a ‘synchronic’ and ‘diachronic’ binary (I know, right?). Simply put, a synchronic approach necessitates ‘a pause in the flow of time,’ a ‘cross-section’ perspective that makes comparing easier. Alternatively, transfer studies and TH, adopting a ‘diachronic’ approach, ‘presuppose a process that unfolds over time.’ Hence the imagery of the ‘honeycomb’ – suggesting a porous, revisable, interactive nature.

2. What is the ‘reflexivity deficit’, a fancy term W & S use (this is more interesting than directly relevant)? The initial goal of transfers study was to show that borders are permeable and undermine the homogeneity of national units. Yet all transfer studies do is to ‘underline foreign contributions’ to the development of a national culture, not call it into question. So in a sense it ‘reinforces the prejudices that they seek to undermine.’

3. In a point that made me think of Konrad’s earlier post about from idea to sources or the other way round, W & S discuss the pendulum swing between the historian and his/her sources and object of study. What is emphasised here is the idea of a ‘dynamic’ and constantly modifying relation. After all, the croisée or ‘trans’ element in TH does not only refer to the object of study. It also refers to the crossing, and changing of the ways with which historians interact with their sources, a metaphor being switching gears. Now how can this be actually put into practise is perhaps a more daunting question to answer, but the main idea is that TH demonstrates the possibility of ‘multiple possible viewpoints’, history as multi-layered, multi-perspectival rather than existing on a single plane.

With all this in mind, when I have an initial idea of a topic, I will try to build in these transnational elements. I will keep my eyes open for when a change in scale/category/viewpoint is in order, and modify my methodology as I trace some sort of a ‘process’.

For example, I was reminded of that week in MO3337 – China’s Revolutions when we discussed the spread of Maoism across the developed and developing world. I was excited to find, for instance, that two leaders of the Black Panther Party – Elaine Brown and Huey Newton – visited China during the Cultural Revolution and wrote down how they were impressed by how the revolution improved livelihoods and the ‘sensation of freedom’. I became interested to find out more about why foreign revolutionaries visited Mao’s China, what they thought about their experience there, what inspirations did they take from it…etc. Another topic that I am also exploring has to do with the year 1989 in world history, if I can find certain transnational agents, preferably non-governmental, who travelled between East Germany before and after November, Eastern Europe, Iran and China. What is interesting about 1989 is that on one hand you have people such as Francis Fukuyama who heralded the ‘end of history’ and the definitive, final triumph of western liberalism, but on the other hand you have a watershed moment in modern Chinese history, where calls for political reforms were brutally stifled by a regime that still holds power to this day.

A Project and Its Beginnings

As we near our project proposals and presentations I have begun to narrow down and also to begin to dive into some readings on the top I’ve chosen and as I have done this I have begun to cultivate a number of questions and concerns about where I am headed. But before I can share those questions and concerns with you let me explain my topic. It is no surprise to myself that what I found most interesting when deciding on a topic was the movement of people.

Throughout history people have always been on the move. Traveling from one place to another for work, social, political, and religious means was and still is common for humans to do. When, however, an individual decides to continuously move claiming no nation for their own and appointing their home to be whatever they carry with them they become more than the immigrants, emigrants or weary travelers. A nomad, a person without a set piece of land or country to call home, a person from nowhere but equally a person from everywhere does not and I believe should not be grouped as a migrant. But then how do we and how do they define themselves? And then the question becomes how do a people who don’t associate themselves with any set nation state or nationality identify themselves? And along those lines how can I have an entire project centered around a people whose entire identity defies the term being focused on, transnationalism.

The focus of my project will be to study nomadic peoples in Europe and The Middle East within the twentieth century in an effort to confront and possibly answer some of these questions. I have found significant sources on these nomadic people from historians, sociologists, anthropologists and archeologists as well as a number of texts in both English and French. This means that hopefully I will be confronted with many perspectives and ideas about these nomadic people themselves. Although while I may have a number of secondary sources I am finding it as of now difficult to obtain primary sources having realized that many of the articles already written gained their information from speaking directly to the nomadic people. I have also found thus far that the majority of articles on the nomads, specifically the Romani and  the Domani, are not written about their identity and how they fit or don’t fit into the nation state but rather about their culture and lifestyle. These are I think some of the major challenges I face when approaching this project but ones I am keen to dive into. I think this will be a rigorous but ultimately fascinating and hopefully rewarding project to take on.

Well I have a project idea but lets see if it’s workable!

Having skimmed one or two journal articles about the study of sex in transnational history I came across a mention of an epidemic of venereal disease in Germany right at the end of the Second World War, apparently thanks to new antibiotic treatments and victory allied troops had thrown caution to the wind to the point where the VD crisis was top of the agenda at several meetings of the Allied Control Council. So hovering around World War II might be an idea especially since it’s a period I have some prior knowledge of. Then I ended up reading through a quick overview of the history of the condom and an idea started to form. Governments often have to be pragmatic in practice but language in advertising and propaganda is often more telling of official and social attitudes. So I’m planning to look at condom and prophylactic (and maybe other contraceptives) propaganda and advertising at the front and on a domestic level before, during and after the Second World War and hopefully will be able to compare and contrast between different countries although I am sensing an American focus (largely due to previous scholarship and source availability.) It is documented that the USA was unusual in not issuing condoms to its troops during the First World War and consequentially having to deal with around 400,000 cases of VD (gonorrhea and syphilis mostly) but the US troops learned about condoms during their interactions with soldiers from other countries who had been issued with them and no doubt the subject came up during interaction with civilians while in Europe as well. So when the troops returned home the Comstock laws had to be relaxed little by little and condoms specifically could be sold, albeit with restrictions, as a way of preventing the spread of disease however their contraceptive use was not to be marketed.
During the Great Depression the condom industry boomed and by 1940 the FDA were beginning to regulate the quality of condoms on sale within the USA (rejects were still commonly exported.)
I’ve found a few posters aimed at the American and British military regarding VD and some images of condom packaging from this period. However, I am finding it difficult to determine if posters are genuine and their exact dates of issue and to find examples of domestic adverts in printed publications. My main concerns at the moment are: access to primary sources; ability to find sources from multiple countries; that the project may end up more about VD than the discourse surrounding condoms and lack of coherence.
I do think this project is worthwhile however as condoms were important enough to be standard issue to the majority of troops during  WWII and to not have production restricted like other rubber products during war time then the attitudes and discourse surrounding them is worthy of study. The taboo surrounding topics of this nature still exists in the modern day to the potential detriment of public health and so looking back at how attitudes were shaped and changed in the past may yield lessons for the present and future.

Introducing “European Sailors Clothing in Transnational Perspective, 1750-1790”

The clothing worn by sailors throughout Western Europe in the late eighteenth century reflected the transnational links and divisions of the maritime world they inhabited. As boats crossed between nations, the men aboard both military and commercial vessels dressed in a particular way, reflecting the fashion of their subculture, and the practicalities of their day-to-day lives. My presentation at our MO3351 Conference will attempt to summarize my research on late eighteenth century sailors’ clothing; I look forward to hearing your opinions on this passion of mine.

-universal work garments shared by most mariners; but also regionally and nationally specific ones (eg. seamen of all nations increasingly wearing trousers; but only French sailors wearing sashes, besides specific regional costumes within both nations [eg. Provencal v. Breton v. lowland Scottish)

-general decennial trends in fashion; but also regional particularities (eg. shortening cuts of jackets and waistcoats over century, the changing shape of hats (cocked to round))

-and as always, the variances of individual means and personal taste (more or less clothing, and in better or worse states of repair, as reflected in visual sources and estate inventories)

 

Why is this relevant?

-clothing is what we wear everyday; it matters deeply to how we engage with people and the world (it is a reflection of “the personal, the professional, and the local”, no matter the era)

-exploring historical fashion is a meaningful way to understand larger themes in the study of history (if we understand how and why garments change, we often can draw larger points too)

-mariners’ dress reflects the work and connections of their milieu, making it both an ideal (and unexplored) case-study that no-one has yet seriously attempted to research on its own!

-sailors clothing can be reproduced and used in an education setting, or in actual Tall Ships sailing on historic replicas (why study something if you don’t attempt to get hands-on with it?)

 

Challenges

-knowing how to charismatically communicate an in-depth specialist topic to an audience from diverse backgrounds

-knitting together a wealth of widely dispersed documentation; sorting out folklore and anachronism

-defining what transnational perspective can bring in a period without ‘nationalism’ as we understand it (eg. Ancien Regime ‘France’ c. 1770 is not n a 19th century ‘nation’or today’s 5th Republic)

-carefully interpreting limited evidence (not confusing causation with correlation); balancing practical with social considerations (eg. why cocked hats are worn backwards by seamen)

-using ‘problematic’ sources; (eg. stock images or caricatures of mariners in commercial engravings); balancing the ‘ideal to real’ of government ordinances with actual conditions

-balancing the charisma of theatrical presentation with the rigour of academic research (in 15 minutes or less, often to an audience standing in the sun)

The Long Project and Personal Connection in the Study of History

For the past week I have been researching, thinking and re-thinking potential subjects for my long project. Being presented with such an open project where each aspect of it has to be independently thought out makes you realise the difference between pre-honours and honours in History. No more essay questions presented neatly on a platter, and no more set bibliography. It is harder, but it is also more exciting. I have been forced to question what really interests me and, although I still don’t really have a clear answer, I have ideas.

My family has had an AGA oven since we moved to Scotland from Sweden in 2007. Although the idea of studying an oven might not sound very stimulating, the more I look into the history of the AGA then more I am fascinated by it. It is a Swedish invention by a Nobel prize winning Physicist from the 1920s that has since been increasingly connected with British identity, but is now also exported across the world. I want to track the journey of the AGA through its advertising, and examine its success through its aim to improve efficiency for women in the kitchen. The twentieth century saw an increasing preoccupation with efficiency and functionality. However, traditional design still remained important for many countries, which is probably why the AGA has been so successful in Britain at the same time as it is barely used in Sweden anymore. I think this is a really interesting subject, but I also recognise problems and limitations. I will need co-operation from museums and advertising archives when looking for source material, and will also have to try to track down people to interview about acquiring an AGA in the mid twentieth century and how it changed everyday life ( I will clarify how it did this in my project proposal).

Ultimately, I believe that his project will introduce us to a more realistic picture of what it means to be a historian. Yes, we will need to spend hours in the library to find information, but we will also need to think creatively about who to contact, and what places we might need to travel. Ultimately, studying History (and maybe in particular Transnational History) is a living activity that should also connect us to people and places, and not just confine us to solitary study.

From Project Proposal to Presentation

It is great to see the first posts on projects coming in – including the teething problems, how to decide on a topic (you see, that is what we do as academics, PhDs – the world is wide open). Nikos and I will be in class today to discuss projects, ideals, give support with problems.

From there it will be quick steps to:

Presentations - Dos & Donts
Presentations – Dos & Donts

-Project Proposal

-7mins Project Presentation 

-Unconference (more information will follow shortly)

Following on from our discussion last week on what makes a strong presentation, here is what he collected. Key for all is: it has to be a fair playing field – 7mins sharp, each. No more, no less. Sticking to the given format is simply a matter of respect (all too often ignored at conferences, workshops, or even job interviews).

Take this as free practice time. The short presentation is not assessed. That does not mean you should not practice. Quite the contrary: it needs practice beforehand. Practice what you can get in, and what NOT! You do not need to squeeze everything into 7mins. Focus on the essentials. Short is good: it helps you to focus on essentials, not on details. They can come later in your project.

And: try something new. This is deliberately not assessed. Of course we want and you want great presentations on promising projects, but do not play it safe-safe. Try something. Speak without notes for the first time ever. Make contact with your audience. Get inspiration from TEDx talks how the pros (and some not-pros) speak to an audience. Speaking of which – the audience.

We often mistake that WE (the presenter) are the main act, the centre of attention. No, we are not. The audience is the STAR. That is what “giving a paper” in the best possible way should mean. YOU give something to your audience – in return for the time given to you by the audience. Make yourself and your topic accessible. Do not bulldoze over your audience in overly detailed, jargonist prose.

Summing up: 7mins is short. Short does not mean easy. Think hard what to focus and what to leave out (for now). Make your topic accessible, relevant, enjoyable – and just enjoy, do not aim for perfection.

 

 

 

The Daunting Task of Practising Transnational History

So, this is the week transnational history starts to get a bit more daunting. Up until this point, we have spent the majority of our time reading the work of historians, trying to grasp an understanding of the approach based on what they have to offer. This has left me with a basic definition of what transnational history is and the variety of narratives it can offer. I would be lying, however, to say that I now have a firm grasp on what transnational history should be. I really don’t. At the moment, it is more a collection of ideas running through my head rather than a solid definition.
That’s the reason why this week is such a challenge. We now finally have to pin down whatever it is we wish to explore as part of our project and sell it in a proposal of fewer than 800 words. With my own views on transnational history still quite uncertain, this is proving to be fairly difficult. From the beginning of this module I have had several ideas jump out as me as possible routes to follow towards a final project. Yet, every time I think about the ways in which I could explore these ideas in a transnational context, I end up feeling a bit lost.
For example, the idea I am currently leaning towards for my project involves looking at the rise of the welfare state in Britain after the Second World War and the ways in which it was influenced by, or had influences on, other similar systems within Europe. However, this could be problematic for several reasons. My first concern is that I’m inadvertently being teleological in my approach. If I explore the ways in which the welfare state came to exist, it appears nearly impossible not to create a narrative of progression from point A to B. On the one hand I obviously want to explore the transnational exchange of ideas in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries which led to welfare reforms across Europe and beyond. However, I obviously want to avoid creating a backward facing narrative. Perhaps this is an inherent problem with this particular question, or maybe in the following week I can think of a way to make this work. As of yet, I’m not sure.
Konrad’s post about starting with sources and then working outwards from there has helped considerably with this issue, yet I still feel slightly overwhelmed whenever I think about where to start regarding sources. Of course, using primary sources to formulate ideas is refreshing to say the least. Yet, it is also incredibly daunting. Where do I find the sources I need? Are they going to be reliable? These are both questions I am going to have to take very seriously in the next few weeks, as are questions of scale – do I want to create a macro-history or a micro-history? Which will be of greater benefit to my narrative? If I do want to go down the micro-historical route, will I be able to find enough source material to do so?
For the rest of this week, as I try to create an exciting project proposal, these are questions I will try and get to grips with. Perhaps in next week’s blog post I will be able to share some of my conclusions with you. For now, however, I still definitely have more questions than answers.

Michael McGerr’s Article and How to Write Transnational History

While many of my colleges I’m sure will be writing on how and what their projects are beginning to look like I felt it only right as I had yet to post about prior reading to begin my blogging with an examination of an article suggested to us a few weeks back. I felt this particular article relevant as we approach the beginnings of our projects as it’s an interesting example of how an author approached writing about transnational history and why as a reader I did not believe his argument. Even more than that by the end of the article I didn’t feel he had spent enough time examining the topic for him to even be writing on it.

Lets go back to two weeks ago when several others on this page commented about the writing of Ian Tyrrell from his book Transnational Nation. United States History in Global Perspective sine 1789. Though I was not one of those who wrote in response to that reading it was non the less fascinating and well worth a read, though I doubt historian Michael McGerr would agree. McGerr’s article meant to focus on examining the differing genre, relevance, and nuance of the idea of Transnationalism being brought to the field of historiography quickly becomes an extensive and  harsh critique on the work written by the historian Ian Tyrrell. McGerr focusing on Tyrell’s article “American Exceptionalism in an Age of International History” explains that in order to accept the history that Tyrell is writing about Tyrell asks that one de-emphasize the American distinctiveness in order to focus on the transnational history of the country. This term exceptionalism then becomes the main line of argument for McGerr throughout the remainder of his article.

His argument being that, “Tyrrell’s determination to fight exceptionalism, American distinctiveness, comparative studies, and nation-centered history prevents him from exploring more fully the potential of an internationalized history”. While some of his argument may to some extent have weight McGerr takes this idea to far by firstly emphasizing that without the nation the area of study of transnationalism is not relevant. This would not be a terrible argument to make since historians are still trying to define this term but McGerr gives no definition of what he believes transnational history to even be. Secondly, though he does not denounce the historical area of study he terms new – transnationalism- he does speak of it in such a way as to suggest that it has very little significance, in comparison to environmental history, social history, international connections and global history, within the larger field of study. And on top of this there is a lack of definition and obvious distain for the term transnationalism that cause the ideas presented in an essay whose writing is within itself frustrating and hard to follow to lose relevance. It’s set in a stream of consciousness like manner, jumping from one idea to the next with little to no cohesion, and continuously reiterating terms and phrases, sometimes unnecessarily. Here then is the questions that McGerr with his frustrating writing prose prompts us to ask ourselves: How when approaching an area of study that is so difficult to grasp such as transnationalism should we think about writing so that a relevant argument does not get lost?

In response I’d begin by returning to our evaluation of McGerr’s article and try to answer for him how one might define transnationalism. I’d say I define transnational history as not solely focusing on the crisscross between nations or on the internationalization of society but as an umbrella term. It incorporates social, economic, environmental, Micro and Macro, and many more areas and approaches to history in order to understand at large the cross cultural, cross social, cross economic, and cross national global history of this earth. And since McGerr never gives us a definition I as the reader give the term transnationalism within this article my definition. Therefore when McGerr states that “transnational history has difficulty coexisting with the traditional national histories” it becomes apparent to me that he does not grasp even slightly what transnational history is.

So in response to the above question I’d say that you have understand for yourself what the terms your using mean. Because even with a solid argument if the reader doesn’t understand how that argument fits into the terms your using then they’re lost. And even more than that your argument may just fall apart because of it.

McGerr, Michael. “The Price of the ‘New Transnational History.’” The American Historical Review 96, no. 4 (October 1991): 1056-67.

Hiccups in My Project Proposal

I’ve been doing research into my potential project, and I’ve been encountering quite a few issues which I am anxious to address. If anyone has any advice for me on how to proceed, I would  be exceedingly grateful. I am proposing to study how syncretic religion and transnational identities were formed and have continued to develop in the Caribbean. I think I’ll be focusing on Santería, Rastafarianism, and potentially Palo; there are subgroups within these faiths that I will address, but these are the three that I think best represent the intersection of indigenous beliefs, European Christianizing influence, and West African culture.

Firstly, I am concerned about my own personal bias in entering into this research project. I am a Christian-raised, middle-class Anglo-Saxon who has never been to the areas of the world I will be researching. I was raised in the Judeo-Christian culture of the United States, which is relatively intolerant of non-Abrahamic belief systems. Thus, I am hoping that I can avoid either exotifying these faiths or treating them as ‘cults’ or fringe groups. I hope that I can be properly objective in treating these faiths, without the interference of socialized normalizations regarding belief.

Second, I wonder about the legitimacy of the sources we have for these groups. No writing culture existed in the Caribbean islands before European invasion and colonization, so most of the primary sources that survive from the first decades of these interactions are from the perspective of invading peoples. Recording the oral traditions of these cultures has been notoriously tricky, and it leaves an enormous gap in the historical understanding of the roots of these phenomena. I do not want to misrepresent the experiences of these people, since it is their personal experiences that form the transnational phenomena I’m attempting to study.

With all of that in mind, I am leery as to my ability to objectively undertake this project. Again, if anyone has any suggestions as to how I ought to proceed, I would appreciate it so very much!

Current Readings:

Edmonds, Ennis B. and Michelle A. Gonzalez, Caribbean Religious History: An Introduction (New York, 2010).

Gossai, Hemchand and Nathaniel Samuel Murrell (eds), Religion, Culture and Tradition in the Caribbean (Basingstoke, 2000).

Pulis, John W. (ed.), Religion, Diaspora, and Cultural Identity: a Reader in the Anglophone Caribbean (Amsterdam, 1999).

Taylor, Patrick (ed.), Nation Dance: Religion, Identity, and Cultural Difference in the Caribbean (Bloomington, 2001).