Transnational trafficking networks, 1940-2000

There are few instances of networks more clearly transnational than those in which human traffickers operate. Deliberately operating beyond the confines of state laws by definition, human traffickers and their victims clandestinely navigate boundaries.

For this reason, the proposed project will encounter many challenges. As Louise Shelley, among the world’s current leading academic experts writing on human trafficking, notes, although the ‘phenomena of human smuggling and trafficking is clearly delineated legally’ –by the UN at the 2000 Palermo Convention, in a definition of universal temporal utility despite its date of origin— ‘in reality the situation is often not as clear.’[1] The networks through which human trafficking has historically occurred are, though wide-spread, typically rudimentary: large-scale organised crime has played a role in its occurrence, but not to such an extent that paper trails are commonplace.

Equally, although trafficked individuals very seldom remained within their original country (and therefore almost always crossed borders), the illicit nature of the crossings, in conjunction with the fact that those expected to police the borders are frequently bribed by the traffickers, ensures that all too often, a paucity of concrete records renders the job of the historian of human trafficking a relatively thankless task.

For this reason the proposed project will not seek, unless unexpectedly developed resources are discovered, to attempt micro-histories of transnational actors within the trafficking networks, or to attempt to significantly delineate between networks or aspects of networks in order to historicise them individually. Instead, the project proposes to approach the topic from a macro perspective, examining the ways in which the interactions of different trafficking networks, NGOs, governments, and socio-economic-political attitudes and events affected the flow of individuals through the networks and across borders.

Due to the fact that human trafficking has only become popular to study in approximately the past twenty years, with an emphasis within existing literature upon relatively recent history, and that furthermore the proliferation of autonomous nation-states necessary for a truly transnational rather than intra-organisational approach occurred only following global decolonisation in the latter half of the 20th century, it is to that time period (approx. 1940- 2000) that the project will give most attention. The context of the studied societies, and the networks left in place or in flux following the withdrawal of the colonising powers, will, however, be of relevance and briefly examined.

The project is expected to focus primarily on Central and Northern Africa, but with comparisons also to be made between human trafficking networks in this region and those of South-East Asia and Eastern Europe. The Middle East, as an area on which few sources (particularly Anglophone) exist, is expected to have a minimal presence; America will not be addressed.

Attempting to look beyond the reductive analysis of ‘pull-factors’ and ‘push-factors’ in regions of complexity and impermanent relationships, the project will consider the conditions in which human trafficking became possible at both ‘ends’ of trafficking routes; and, to the extent that it is possible, the experiences of those involved.

It is expected that the project shall argue that a combination of wide structural components was necessary to the creation of the industry (multiple borders sufficiently open; easily accessible transport; increased communications possible between members of the trafficking networks), in conjunction with a number of proximate components (poor economic outlook in trafficking epicentres; relatively limited education of trafficked individuals; a demand for labour and/or sex workers in the ‘receiving’ locations).

The facets and factors to be considered in the creation of a coherent narrative will be numerous, and the argument can be expected to evolve considerably. The period-specific questions that this project initially proposes to investigate, however, are:

  • ‘How did human trafficking networks use their transnationality to achieve their ends?’
  • ‘To what extent did the increasing prevalence of globalised industry and global connectivity create a more porous migration system?’
  • ‘How did transnational anti-trafficking actors and networks a) develop and b) seek to combat clandestine movements?’

By nature of its focus, this project will be obligated to be multi-disciplinary. Much of the relevant material will be contained in, among other sources, NGO workers’ notes, testimonies or diaries of those trafficked, minutes of UN or governmental meetings, laws, and police records. Approaches used more frequently by scholars of anthropology, sociology or international relations will therefore be appropriate to allow a fully developed historicisation. Although the field is young, several scholars and individuals are of prominent initial interest. Among them are Kevin Bales; Louise Shelley; J.O’C. Davidson; A.P. Jakobi; and David Kyle. The records of the UN, the IJM, and similar organisations are also expected to be drawn upon.

Transnational history is a very young sub-discipline; the study of 20th-century human trafficking, though recently a relative cause célèbre, is of roughly the same age. The study of human trafficking networks is not only firmly within the remit of the transnational historian’s interests (to the extent, arguably, that a holistic approach to it can be undertaken by the transnational historian alone), but is also, by virtue of its youth as an academic field, one to which almost any study will bring something new. The proposed project is thus one of significant interest.

[1] Louise Shelley, Human Trafficking: A Global Perspective, (Cambridge: CUP, 2010), p. 11

Strategic Migration in British Empire? Yes or No?

When Giovanni Gozzini utilized the phrase ‘strategic migration’ to describe the exploits and agency of migrant workers in the 19th and 20th centuries, he knowingly confronted a long-standing historiographical viewpoint on the subject of Indenture. As Hugh Tinker’s A New System of Slavery illustrates, historical writing on the emigration of labour often approaches the topic of indenture in a similar fashion to how historians study slavery. For Tinker’s ilk, Indenture was seen as a legal continuation of slavery following its abolition in the British Empire in 1834. As such, Gozzini’s ‘strategic migration’, and all its signifiers, will become a determining factor when analysing whether or not certain migrants had agency and choice within the indentured labour networks.[1] Moreover, a timeframe of nearly 100 years will allow thorough investigation into the nature of indentured labour on the west and east coasts of Africa, stretching as far east as the Indian Ocean and back across to the West Indies. In particular, this investigation into British indentured labour networks will attempt to explain the real levels of agency that indentured labourers held as well as the driving forces behind worker migration, which ‘strategic migration’ opponents would claim were primarily negative.

These makeshift boundaries, or networks of indentured migration, will provide ample evidence as to whether worker migration was determined by ‘push’ (economic hardship, little employment opportunities) or ‘pull’ (shortage of labour elsewhere, higher wages) factors. This, like ‘strategic’ vs ‘un-strategic’ migration, is a distinction that will be helpful when determining the true nature of migrant workers’ actions and mentalities. Employers’ ‘strategic’ actions will also be examined in the light of the ‘push’ and ‘pull’ dynamic that drove migrant labour. Signifiers of ‘strategic migration’, including high numbers of single males, will be supported by records of dis-embarkation at particular port cities such as the Report of the Assam Labour Enquiry Committeee (Calcutta, 1906).[2] Further, rates of repatriation will reveal the obstacles to ‘remigration’ for indentured migrants in their given migrant network; ‘un-strategic’ migration has several developed arguments. It should be noted that repatriation was experienced and treated differently by each employer in their particular indenture network. This will be another point of contention in my analysis and, thus, will have the potential to skew my conclusions. This is why secondary works on migration systems will be crucial as they encompass a wide-range of historiographical viewpoints: from Brij Lal’s assessment of indentured labour’s stark contrast to slavery to Tinker’s conclusion that they are one and the same.

Besides utilizing an extensive bibliography, the aim of this indentured labour research will also be to explain, through mapping, why certain areas saw subjectively better (fulfilled promises of healthcare, accommodation, and wages) – in the eyes of the migrants – migrant experiences. With the help of network maps, it will also be possible to explain why rates of repatriation differed according to the place of embarkation and disembarkation. In contrast, analysis from a micro level will inform us of the conditions experienced by indentured workers and provide insight into worker mentality in a certain locale. In particular, efforts have already and will continue to be made to attain Consul Müller’s correspondence with English and German representatives during the worker exchange between German South-West Africa and British South Africa. Macro-level sources will also be referenced as with the statistics for levels of black migration throughout Africa during the gold rush of the 20th century.

Problems are not ubiquitous, as ample evidence and reporting on indenture exists (especially on a macro level). Yet, notable issues arise with the analysis of workers’ mentalities as well as their initial aspirations for emigrating to find employment. Plainly, did indentured servants and migrant workers understand the difficulties they were going to face and was an areas rate of repatriation dependent on the types of people who worked there and where they came from? Moreover, the ‘strategic’ aspect of my question will focus on whether indentured labour was a necessity, due to negative ‘push’ factors, or was it a choice that was enticed by positive ‘pull’ factors (‘push’ and ‘pull’ don’t always correlate to negative and positive, respectively).

In essence, the aim of this project will be to determine the nature of indentured labour and the processes (both macro and micro) behind it which led to a widely varied and misunderstood cluster of migrant worker networks. Even further, mapping and contemporary accounts should shed light as to whether indentured labour can really be distinguished from slavery by the terms ‘strategic’ and ‘un-strategic’.

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Giovanni Gozzini, “The Global System of International Migrations, 1900 and 2000: A Comparative Approach.” Journal of Global History 1, no. 3 (November 2006) p. 324.

[2] Hugh Tinker, A New System of Slavery: The Export of Indian Labour Overseas 1830-1920 (London, 1974) p. 50.

 

Project Proposal | Transnational Space: Agrarian Development and Circulation in India (1757-1858)

On 31 December 1600, Queen Elizabeth I presented the East India Company [EIC] with the ability to monopolise English trade in the East Indies. The Company, incentivised by the abundance of resources in India, secured a strong foothold in a country that later became their most valuable colony. Through numerous campaigns, the British EIC was not only able to commission the circulation of Indian crops for re-export, but also facilitated the development of foreign technologies and led a world-wide discussion of revolutionary ideas.

The vast historiography of agricultural production during the years of the EIC tends to focus primarily on the political and economic consequences of the Company’s rule during Indian colonisation. The following project, scoped between the Battle of Plassey of 1757 and the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857-1858, will investigate the dynamism of transnational space with regards to agrarian development and circulation under the influence of the Company in India. Rather than approaching this project from simply a socio-economic or political viewpoint, this paper is unique in its examination of the transmission of agricultural practices, ideas and output from a cross-border perspective.

This paper intends to achieve three primary objectives. First, and perhaps most crucially, the development of new technologies and English efforts to improve means of cultivation in India allowed for the formation of transnational networks between the two aforementioned countries. The project will use cartographical evidence to track communication programs and transportation systems that enabled the spread of such technologies. Next, the paper will consider the crucial world-wide transmission of knowledge and ideas, emphasising a cross-border communication that was gradually developing over time. I will suggest that desires for political supremacy led to a scramble for more rapid agricultural-development. By establishing an understanding of differing historiographical approaches towards agrarian circulation, this project will finally investigate how the function of transnational space has progressed over time. This would be done by investigating globalisation and its effect on secondary literature regarding crop cultivation in India, or the consequence of climate change on cross-border circulation of crops in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Historical perspective on such topics tends to vary across borders, depicting discrepancies in the way scholars approach agricultural history today. This project will also analyse a darker aspect of British policy, particularly their agricultural reform which broke the back of the agrarian society of India. I will be using events such as the Bengal Famine of the 18th century to prove that Britain’s motivations were driven by self-interest. Events such as these would be placed into a transnational lens, as the project will investigate their global effects on the rest of the world.

There are numerous primary sources that prove invaluable to this project. Letters from Lord Grenville to King George III, along with court minutes written by the EIC provide evidence of Britain’s motivations behind introducing new crops and technologies to India. The writings of Arthur Young on agricultural development in Britain, particularly Political Arithmetic, is elemental in perceiving British attitudes towards technological advancements in India, and the circulation of agricultural knowledge that was transmitted from India to England, and vice versa. In regards to the EIC, there is an abundance of secondary literature that is also available. Roberto Davini’s “Bengali Raw Silk, the East India Company and the European Global Market” is insightful in its analysis regarding the transnationalism of technological advancement, through Davini’s thorough examination of the silk industry in India and the introduction of Piedmontese reeling technology. More niche books, such as “The Origin of “the Pusa Experiment” : The East India Company and Horse-Breeding in Bengal, 1793-1808”, introduced not simply a British development, but brought to India “the whole cultural and technological baggage of European civilisation as well [1].” More general readings on the Company, such as Tripta Desai’s “The East India Company From 1599-1857” are paramount for not only contextual knowledge, but also for a thorough comprehension of the relationship Britain held with foreign powers, thus assisting with the dispersion of knowledge that took place along with the trade of agricultural produce.

In addition to the written aspect, the project will include a mapping component to investigate transportation networks for crop and technological circulation from India and Britain, to demonstrate an increase in communicative technology during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. With this in mind, this project will ultimately aspire to take a unique, more modern stance towards agricultural circulation during the prime years of the EIC, in what hopes to suggest that transnational space was vital in the Indian agrarian industry.

 

[1] Renata Kerkhoff. Kathinka. Colonising Plants in Bihar (1760-1950). (India, 2014). pp. 104-105

Ideas of culture, identity, and borders

 

The border between the United States and Mexico, which spans approximately 3 million miles of land between the two nations, has been a topic of political, economic, and migratory tension which has been heightened significantly in the age of globalization. Historically, it has also represented and facilitated a myriad of significant transnational exchanges containing not only migrants, capital, goods, and labor, but concepts of identity and culture as well.

 

Many Mexican-Americans who reside in the United States identify as Chicano or Chicana. This chosen identifier and its cultural, political, and social significance has developed over time as the result of how Mexican-Americans experienced life in the United States. Chicanos have found that their national identity tends to take on an ambiguous form—north of the border, they are considered Mexican, but South of the border they find it difficult to incorporate themselves into the Mexican national identity due to their geographical and cultural “otherness”. Therefore, the Chicano identity has formed in a liminal space in which neither nation which is built into the Chicano identity actually identifies with it in return. While Chicanos live north of the border, the border seems in many ways to be inextricably linked to Chicano identity. This project seeks to historically locate the transnational exchanges inherently embedded into the Chicano identity, arguing that these exchanges can be found when scholars look at the border not simply in terms of its modern geographical and political significance, but as a circuit via which identity and culture are brought into and out of each nation, respectively.

 

Performing this study involves looking at a multiplicity of factors, guided by two central research questions:

  • How can taking a transnational approach to history inform scholars about migrant identity and culture—what do they bring with them, what do they add to their chosen destination?
  • What can history tell us about the Chicano people and their built and imagined communities?

 

In addition to these questions, there are several moments in the history of the border which create valuable starting points when approaching this project and the research required for it. These mainly consist of events that have facilitated an influx of migration across the border. When the Mexican Revolution began in 1910, the other side of the border symbolized safety for thousands of Mexican migrants.[1] As was a common global trend, World War I and World War II created a need for labor in participatory nations. For the United States, much of this labor came from Mexican migrants. For Mexican migrants, the need for labor in America created an opportunity to seek prosperity and job security. Along this trend, the Bracero Program drew migrant labor from Mexico into the U.S. in mass, amounting to approximately 5 million migrants.[2] Finally, in 1965, the Border Industrialization Program was launched. This was an attempt to industrialize the border, resulting in hundreds of emerging enterprises on the border which are subsidized by U.S. firms.[3] The industrialization of the border has facilitated further migration since.

 

These transnational moments in history incorporated more identities, more voices, and more communities into what it means to be Chicano. That is, what it means to have a liminal identity embedded within a transnational and migratory past. Exploring these moments of movement and exchange, tracing who these people were and where they went, and tracing how Chicano identity changes in structure and form along with transnational exchanges (via literature, political activism, etc.) may yield valuable insight into who these people are, how they relate to their home and concepts of homeland, and how they participate in their wider communities as a whole.

[1] http://www.datesandevents.org/us-immigration-timelines/mexican-immigration-america-timeline.htm.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Anna-Stina Ericson, ‘An Analysis of Mexico’s border industrialization program’ in Monthly Labor Review Vol. 93, No. 5 (May 1970), p. 33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41837984.

 

Let’s get transdisciplinary

‘If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?’

Let’s imagine that I go for a walk in Switzerland— in the easternmost part of the state, near the little-known town of Nauders. It’s slightly dark, I’m absent-minded, and in my extended perambulations I also happen to wander into not just Italy but also Lichtenstein. There are no borders marked, or none that I can see in the dark; it’s all under Schengen, and there are no police checks or fences; I’m mostly off-road anyway, and so there are no CCTV cameras to pick me up.

The respective states don’t know that I’ve encroached upon them; I myself don’t know that I’ve ever left Switzerland, and wouldn’t write it down even if I had; and so if one day a historian should set out to record my life, that little episode would quite probably never make it in.

Even if I was a compulsive diarist, and recorded my every move, and even if I made that same absent-minded walk, following the same route, every day for sixty years, the border-crossing nature of my walking career would never be placed by the historian into a narrative. There would be no evidence of it.

Now, let’s turn our attention to the real topic. In the example above, there is still, I suppose, a chance that somebody’s dashboard-cam, or amateur drone footage, or whatever else it might be might pick me up, leaving a trace. But that’s the 21st century. Transpose such movements back into the early 20th, let alone the 19th, and the disturbances left by them become far fewer. The state doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, and neither does the individual.

Let’s say, to add another layer of difficulty for the historian to a nut already difficult to crack, that the individual or individuals making such a journey are actively seeking to avoid being observed; and that moreover, rather than moving between Switzerland and Italy, historically well-regulated borders, they’re instead moving between, let us say, various decolonised nations in central Africa.

It’s my intention to write my project on human trafficking –the necessary conditions; the lived experiences of those involved; responses to it— in the early-to-mid-20th century. I had always expected this to be a somewhat difficult pool in which to fish, to invoke EH Carr. Patricia Clavin posits a vision of the world as a great hexagoned honey-comb, in which various actors are operating in the spaces in between the hexagons. Those who operate there, it turns out, frequently do so for a reason: they wish to remain undetected, and those who could seek to detect them are either unable to or do not desire to (bribery; incompetence; systemic apathy). The crowd goes mild. What a surprise.

That presents quite a conundrum to the historian. How do you historicise something deliberately unremarked at the time that it took place?- especially when it occurred in multiple locations, each of them with little interest in making records? With innovation- that’ll have to be the answer. It’s going to be a challenge, and it’ll require an approach that does more than the simple perusal of secondary works: this will have to be a project that dives into primary sources wholesale, and sources of a wide and varied nature.

Repatriation vs Settlement or is it something else?!

After initially looking at the project proposal and the possible range of ideas I had for my final topic, I realized my main two ideas for the extended essay were actually closely related. First, I wanted to analyse the rates of repatriation for guest (temporary) workers that operated in migrant systems across the whole of the Atlantic. Second, I conceived of a topic that centred around the importance of transnational companies (EIC) of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries and their employment of temporary workers and migrant labour.

 

As I examined these two topics closer, I began to take notice of the similarities between these two topics and how their points of comparison could translate into an expansive project idea. Primarily, I began to see the migration systems of the 19th century as the central period for analysis and, as such, would be wholly concerned with the world the British Empire. Giovanni Gozzini attempted to explain the reasons for the development of large migratory patterns across the Atlantic (and the Indian and Pacific as well). Where Gozzini peaked my interest was in his distinctions between indentured labour and slavery. As he demonstrates, the impetus to see indentured servitude as a continuity of slavery is unwarranted. Listed as the reasons were: “the migrants’ conscious and voluntary signing of long-term contracts hiring out their labour, to the relative improvement of sea-travel conditions”.(gozzini, p. 322) à This statement, supported by mortality rate’ss considerable decline over late 19th century, is testament to the establishment of firm migratory patterns over multiple generations. As Gozzini explains, an initial cluster of movements between two regions creates a self-sustaining network of information, money, and migration over a period of time.

 

Finally, this gets me to my [supposedly more] refined essay topic: Something along the lines of à How did long-established migrant systems affect guest worker’s desire to repatriate to their mother country (or remigrate)?

My initial thoughts on this question were primarily directed at the comparing the usage of indentured labour in the Americas compared to its usage on the opposite side of the Atlantic. As this will no doubt produce a confusing and vast picture of immigration in the Atlantic world, I will then attempt to look at the success of return migrant workers in the indentured servitude system to that of the guest worker system which developed later in the early 20th century. Of course, these two very similar programs will make finding clear breaks much more difficult. However, I believe it will be in my best interest to utilize the micro-analyses of multiple macro-connected countries and regions in order to paint a picture of how and why repatriated workers from India were so resolute in their plans to return home compared to those of Russia. Moreover, it will shed light on the failures of certain countries to support their own workforce as well as helping me determine the usage of strategic migrations vs (un-strategic?) or (out of desperation) migrations.

 

 

The Forgotten Fourth Horseman

While doing reading for my upcoming project on the influenza pandemic of 1918-1919, I was struck by something in particular: a glaring lack of information on the subject. One would think that there would be plenty of sources to be found on such a demographically significant period in history. In the singular year that the influenza raged worldwide, it infected 500 million people and killed between 50 and 100 million of them. The death toll, even at its most modest estimate, exceeds that of World War I (15.9 million) and is on par with that of World War II (50 to 80 million). No corner of the world was left untouched, whether it be the trenches of Europe, the Samoan islands, or even the arctic villages of northern Alaska. Hartford, Connecticut, where my parents work, was almost completely shut down.

In this university’s library, there are upwards of 100 books on World War I. There are under ten on the influenza, and even less are focused on the 1918 pandemic. These books, like those on the bubonic plague, are shelved in the medicine section. I then tried to research the pandemic by way the time period itself, not necessarily the disease. In a 600-plus page book literally titled 1918 (Gregory Dallas), the same year that three to five percent of the world’s population succumbed to influenza, the disease doesn’t even merit a full page.  Why?

While searching the general disease section, I was struck by a passage from Andrew Nikiforuk’s The Fourth Horseman. Nikiforuk quotes Catholic philosopher Jacques Ellul’s depiction of the four horsemen of the apocalypse (from the Book of Revelations) as central to history itself: ‘“all history depends on them and there are only these forces in history.”’ Nikiforuk interprets the first horseman as representative of God; the second, as representative of war and power. The third and fourth are more sinister: the former represents famine, whereas the latter is both pestilence and death. Nikiforuk argues that it is the Fourth Horseman that is the most significant, citing the empires and armies flattened by disease and the changes in social attitudes and structures. He then points out the strange willingness of people to forget this: ‘…we don’t like to think that we are a part of history anymore, or that we are walking memories of past plagues.’ In short, those living today much prefer to think of plagues and epidemics as nasty relics – problems people faced only in the absence of modern medicine and cleanliness. Others have indirectly shared his view; Terence Ranger and Paul Slack, for example, note a predisposition for epidemiological history to be ‘Whiggish’ in nature in their Epidemics and Ideas: Essays on the Historical Perception of Pestilence. Historians have had a history of portraying disease as something increasingly vanquished by modernization and therefore less relevant today.

This is exacerbated by the fact that disease is often very difficult to explain: the virus causing the 1918 pandemic, for example, was only discovered in 1995 and completely identified in 2005. Historians for most of the twentieth century, therefore, would have seen the pandemic as something unpleasant, unexplained, and irrelevant in a modernizing world. It’s not that there isn’t primary information on the flu – countries tend to be pretty good about tracking how many of their people are dying – but rather for a long time, it seems, nobody wanted to use it. While I don’t think this will hinder me too much on my project – in which I will (hopefully) track the disease’s progression along transportation networks – it is certainly striking and, I think, unjustified. 

An Indian Villager, An American Sailor, A Frenchwoman, an Opium Trader and an African American On A Ship

Sea of Poppies is a historical novel written by Amitav Ghosh, and is an intriguing study into opium trade, and how it affected the Indians who were involved. It also focuses on indentured servitude of Indians away from the subcontinent and towards islands such as Mauritius, Fiji, Trinidad. The book is labelled under the Ibis Trilogy, named after the ship that transported groups of people away from the Indian subcontinent, and focuses on the East India Company and their cultivation of opium in India in order to profit from trade with China. In my study on the East India Company for my extended project, which will be looking at how the British utilised foreign relationships to benefit their association with India, this book seemed to crop up in numerous sources and I thought that it would be interesting to consider in a blog post.

“Opium Financed British Rule in India”, says Amitav Ghosh in an eyeopening interview with the BBC.

The book, crucial in our study of Indian history during the East India Company, is inherently transnational in nature. The Ibis, which is the ship that these many cultural groups meet to travel to Mauritius, becomes a transnational space that seems to cloud the definitive boundaries amongst the varied groups of people. The people who board the ship include an Indian female villager (who escaped from ‘sati’), A French woman, an African-American freedman, an Indian landowner and a half-Chinese convict. Paulette, the French woman, refuses her European heritage to embrace life as an outsider, a foreigner. She therefore disguises herself as a Brahmin, and establishes a connection with the other women on board. This demonstrates the fact that nations and borders did not necessarily play a significant role in the forging of alliances.

Ghosh, it is argued, uses untold stories: “The coolies who inspired ‘Sea of Poppies” didn’t have that power [to inscribe]… they didn’t leave diaries behind; after all, they couldn’t even write. So where does that leave those who would tell their stories? Ghosh is forced to imagine them, based on the limited sources available, but he does so with the instincts of an anthropologist more than a novelist…Ghosh obviously wants to make the novel a literary excavation, digging up the stories of people lost to history, but in the process his characters themselves often seem like artefacts.” While it is widely considered a novel, not a microhistory, it can be argued that this book is rather historically accurate in its approach to understanding the atmosphere around the major fictional characters. Ghosh, for example, “read the description of the great Sudder opium factory at Ghazipur…by the factory superintendent, JWS MacArthur,” and therefore “creates an encyclopaedia of early 19th century Indian food, servants, furniture, religious worship, etc.” 

Amitav Ghosh, author of Sea of Poppies

Photograph: Amitav Ghosh, author of Sea of Poppies

In our readings a couple of weeks ago, we discussed Fernand Braudel’s comment on how an imagination is a historian’s most valuable tool. However, Ghosh is not a historian. To what extent can we treat his book like a microhistory? Can we treat this representation of coolies in rural India, and peasant workers who worked on opium farms as an accurate representation of the Company’s influence in the country? Personally, I find that this book is vital to my study of the East India Company, and approaches a rather dark subject within Indian history in an engaging and intriguing manner.

Where to begin?

 

 

 

As I sit here contemplating my project proposal, I have come to wonder exactly what my specific 5000 word essay should be on? There are a number of avenues I would like to explore, and I have decided to settle on Africa. However, this hardly narrows down my search, as now I begin to question where should my focus lie.

 

While conducting my research I came across the Happy Valley Set in Kenya. A largely Aristocratic group of hedonists who lived in the Wanjohi Valley between the 1920s and 1940s. As I delve further into their adventures I find that the Happy Valley Set were entangled in a life of mischief and murder. One notable member of the group, Kiki Preston was named ‘the girl with the silver syringe’ because of her penchant for cocaine and heroin. Preston had numerous affairs with the British aristocracy, including Prince George, Duke of Kent, and was subsequently banned from meeting with him after she introduced him too to drugs.

 

I find the lives which the members of the Happy Valley Set to be particularly interesting. Yet for my project I would like to focus further on the wider picture of colonial settlement. The hedonism of the Happy Valley Set will be just one of the issues I will explore. Of particular interest to me is the interaction between the locals and the settlers, despite a largely negative picture being painted of the relationship, and the racism which ensued, my research last semester regarding Anglo-Indian relations revealed that a codependent relationship existed between the Indian employees and the British employers.

 

The British aristocracy is an interesting angle to take, their lives in Britain were structured by rigid formality, yet those who came to the colonial outposts of Africa seem to have let go of their inhibitions and taken to a life of hedonism. The impact this had on the legacy of the British is one I would like to look into further, and understand whether the British had an overall negative or positive impact on the country. It is easy, in hindsight, to look back and look at a society taken over single handily by European influence, but it is important to understand the benefits that empire had. The impact of women, and the lives which they led, such as that of Kiki Preston are biographies which I would like to look into. Perhaps then, my project will take on a micro-history approach…

 

The British in Africa is a lesser explored topic in colonial historiography. There has been a large focus on the Indian subcontinent, and the mark which the Empire has left. However, Africa too has a long history of colonization which has been slightly overlooked. It garnered much attention after the Scramble for Africa during the late 19th century, but in my opinion has been largely overshadowed by the British in India.

 

My essay has not been sufficiently narrowed down by my research stated above. I still need to condense it down in a chronological order, and formulate a question. Although, the benefit the extended project has given me is the freedom to conduct my own research and formulate my own argument.

‘I’ll put a girdle round about the earth in forty minutes’ – Doing and Practicing Transnational Theatre

I’ve been kind of running with one of the ideas that I put forward in a previous blog post, about how art is inherently transnational. And specifically, I’ve been pushing towards the idea of a project proposal rather than an essay.

So try this on for size:

On a very basic level, Shakespeare is clearly at least a passive transnational actor. His most famous works are set in a diverse array of locations – Venice, Cyprus, Verona, Athens, Rome, Denmark, to name but a few. But on deeper analysis, there is certainly more to it than that. His influences come from across the European continent – particularly from the Italian peninsula – and it would seem that he actively sought out these foreign setting and influences in his work (Shakespeare, Italy, and Transnational Exchange: Early Modern to Present, edited by Enza De Francisci, Chris Stamatakis).

In a country that is increasingly reaching inwards, defining it’s hard borders (link to stuff about N.I. atm), I think it’s important to consider that one of our most important cultural figures was incredibly outward facing. But more than that, I don’t think it’s enough to just note that down and remember it. I think it’s time to do something about it – to remind people, to show people. Hence the idea for my final project proposal.

Hey look guys we have the same hair!

It’s simple really.

Take three of Shakespeare’s most outward facing plays, trace their origins and routes across borders, and then take them on a transnational tour around the European continent, before doing so would require getting a working visa for all the members of the company. Because saying that Shakespeare was transnational is one thing. But showing how transnational his work still is, and still can be, is something that can have a real, lasting effect on how at least some people understand the importance of transnationalism across their lives.

In this sense, I will be understanding transnationalism and transnational history from the perspective of fluid borders, approaching Shakespeare’s work (and, by extension, art as a whole) as something that cannot be defined by its own national influences, but instead must be seen as deriving from a set of dialogues across multiple borders. I will then be presenting some of Shakespeare’s work in a similar context to emphasise these origins, and to demonstrate the importance of keeping these transnational avenues and dialogues open in order to make top quality art.

So yes, in a sense, this is a bit of a love letter to the EU. But I mean, who can blame me?

#remoanerandproud

The shows that I’m thinking of are:

  • A Midsummer Night’s Dream – Set in Athens, with clear ties to the Italian style of commedia dell’arte (Italian), and British traditions of fairies and fairy stories. Also, a loose link to the Ancient Greek myth of Theseus and Hippolyta, and the Italian love story of Pyramus and Thisbe.
  •  A Winter’s Tale – Less so in origin than in plot, the play itself is actually super transnational. It takes place in a dialogue between the kingdoms of Sicily and Bohemia, and is about the micro-level interpersonal exchanges between them. Movements between the two are very fluid.
  • Twelfth Night – Set in Illyria (the Western Balkans), the show begins with a shipwreck, and sets up a constant micro-level exchange between Illyria and Elisium. This also draws on elements of commedia dell’arte (Italian), with more traditional English clowning techniques too.

I’ve also found two fantastic books on the subject – listed below – and anticipate finding a fair few more as research progresses. One final note, I am considering only working on one of the plays, rather than presenting three in a trilogy. It would mean that I could focus on that one play in more depth (I would probably pick A Midsummer Night’s Dream) but I am uncertain yet.

Shakespeare, Italy, and Transnational Exchange: Early Modern to Present, edited by Enza De Francisci, Chris Stamatakis

Transnational Exchange in Early Modern Theater, edited by Robert Henke, Eric Nicholson

A Croatian Electrician, Two Army Officers, and a French Tennis Legend: Toward a Global Microhistory

In one of our readings last week by Tonio Andrade, one part particularly stuck out me and is worth quoting in full.

‘There are stories out there waiting to be told, traces in the archives that can provide individual perspectives on the great historiographical issues that are the core concern of our discipline. Perhaps as you read this, you’re thinking of one. Please tell it. Let’s bring the history of our interconnected world to life, one story at a time.’[1]

Inspired by Andrade’s call to action, I thought that I would respond by telling a story in my blog post this week!

The events begin on 3 May 1945. The Allies had just captured Berlin two days before and the German soldiers were retreating, though the fighting was not yet over. Importantly for the Germans, they held several French VIP prisoners which they could use as ‘bargaining chips’ to secure a better peace deal with the Allies if the War was lost.[2] They kept these prisoners at Castle Itter and under very tight security to prevent them from escaping.

A picture of Castle Itter, where the prisoners were held

Among the political prisoners held at Itter was Georges Clemenceau who was a former prime minister of France and advocated very harsh terms against Germany for the Treaty of Versailles. In addition, the Germans held Albert Lebrun (former president of France), Francesco Saverio Nitti (former Italian prime minister) and Andre Francois-Poncet (former French ambassador to Germany). Not only were there just political prisoners, but they also held Jean Borotra who was a French tennis legend, winning 13 singles and doubles Grand Slams (including Wimbledon 5 times). These prisoners, however, did not often get on well as they were often political rivalries. For instance, Lebrun frequently quarreled with some trade union leaders living in the castle and refused to sit with them at meal times.[3]

Georges Clemenceau was among those held captive at the castle

 

The castle was guarded by soldiers under the command of Eduard Weiter, but events were soon to take a sharp turn. Owing to the inevitability of defeat, Weiter decided that resisting the Allies was hopeless and so decided to shoot himself.[4] The radically changed the situation and caused the guards at the castle to fear for their lives and abandon the castle, leaving the VIP prisoners alone and unguarded. Upon discovering that their fortunes had changed, the prisoners took control of the castle and seized all the weapons. Unfortunately though, escape would be futile because the surrounding woods around the castle were swarming with loyal German soldiers. For the time being, the prisoners would have to remain put in the castle until the area was cleared of German soldiers.[5]

The possibility remained that these German troops would eventually go back into the castle and keep the prisoners under guard. Moreover, the prisoners also heard that the Germans executed 2,000 prisoners at Dachau just before they left the camp, so they feared that they may meet a similar fate. So, one of the workers at the castle, Zvonimir Čučković, a Croatian electrician, decided to take matters into his own hands and go behind enemy lines to try and reach U.S. regiments to ask them to help the prisoners escape from the castle.[6] Čučković made his way down the mountain to the town of Wörgl, though he did not know that the town was occupied by German soldiers. Would Čučković get captured and be forced to tell the Germans about the unguarded prisoners at Itter? Fortunately for him it turned out that the town was occupied by disloyal German soldiers under the command of Major Josef Gangl, who recently joined the Austrian resistance movement.[7] Čučković’s work was done. He had informed Gangl about the prisoners who needed help in the castle, so Čučković then made off for Innsbruck where he would be safe.

Major Josef Gangl helped organise the rescue of the prisoners at the castle

The problem was that Gangl only had about twenty soldiers, so was not really in a position to launch a rescue mission to the castle. Gangl then went searching for some American regiments who might be willing to help him out. Eventually, he stumbled upon a regiment led by Lieutenant Jack Lee and approached him with a neutral white flag. How would Lee react? Would he be skeptical of Gangl’s information, seeing it as a trap laid out by the Nazis? Lee decided to believe Gangl and agreed to launch a rescue mission to the castle.[8] They then both made their way to the castle to try and get the prisoners to safety.

 

Lieutenant Jack Lee helped Gangl with the rescue operation

 

Upon arrival, though, the prisoners were markedly ungrateful. Expecting a large battalion of tanks and a few hundred men armed with machine guns, they were instead met with just a single Sherman tank, 10 American soldiers and 14 German troops.[9] Not only that, but there would not be enough vehicles to move the prisoners out of the castle and hold off any German attacks.[10] To add to that, German men heard that the prisoners were still in the castle and were being defended by an American regiment. Before long, the castle was under heavy fire, the Sherman tank was destroyed by an anti-tank cannon and Gangl got shot by a German sniper.[11] What was Lee going to do now, given that his defense seemed hopeless? One plan he had was to vacate the castle grounds and being all his men and the prisoners into the keep, in order to try and fend off the Germans for as long as possible, in the hope that reinforcements would arrive.[12]

Jean Borotra was a multiple tennis Grand Slam winner who risked his life to get support for the defense of the castle

Just as it seemed that all hope was lost, one of the prisoners, Borotra (the French tennis legend) offered to undertake a suicidal mission, in order to save those trapped in the castle. He offered to slip out of the castle, find American reinforcements and direct them back to the castle in order to save the prisoners and the American and German soldiers.[13] Lee agreed to this. When there was a lull in the fire coming from the attacking Germans, Borotra, disguised as an Austrian peasant, slipped out of the castle and made his way to Wörgl, where there were still American soldiers. Fortunately for those trapped in the castle, Borotra was still in extremely good shape from his tennis career and managed to outrun several SS soldiers on his way to Wörgl.

When Borotra discovered an American battalion at Wörgl, he managed to redirect them back to the castle. He knew where all the German roadblocks were on his way down to Wörgl, so redirected the battalion to avoid these. Now, just as the German soldiers were very close to besieging the castle, the battalion led by Borotra arrived just in time. The arrival of American soldiers as reinforcements scared the besieging German troops, who subsequently fled.[14] The castle was secure and the prisoners could then be escorted back to France and then released. Some of these prisoners went back into politics when they arrived in France and then went on to be extremely influential in French policy making in the next few decades.[15] Had they died at Itter, French politics might have turned out very different in the second half of the twentieth century.

So, then, what is the importance of all this? What really stands out to me is just how transnational all this is. We encounter a Croatian electrician helping out French and Italian prisoners escape from a castle held by German soldiers by finding disloyal German soldiers, part of an Austrian resistance, who then are helped by advancing American soldiers, with further backup being requested by a French tennis legend. Take a deep breath. It seems that national borders did not matter much when these people acted. It made no difference to the events whether, for instance, the electrician was Croatian, British, Spanish or Russian – he just wanted to help the prisoners escape. Similarly, the arguments between the prisoners had nothing to do with national differences, but rather political divisions. Thus, it seems that the events were not driven by national differences.

Another interesting theme in all this is that it is the only example of Germans and Americans fighting together in World War Two.[16] Without this obscure event, it would be so tempting to think of World War Two in national terms. Germany vs America. France vs Germany. However, by examining the non-state actors here, we can understand that actually these national conflicts made not too much difference in their lives. German soldiers were happy to fight for America against their own men and disobey commands from the Nazi hierarchy. Could we now think of World War Two as being a transnational war, where national differences do not matter as much as we think? I’ll let you decide that for yourself.

So, let me leave you with this. There are stories out there waiting to be told, traces in the archives that can provide individual perspectives on the great historiographical issues that are the core concern of our discipline. Perhaps as you read this, you’re thinking of one. Please tell it. Let’s bring the history of our interconnected world to life, one story at a time.[17]

By Tonio Andy-rade

 

[1] Tonio Andrade, ‘A Chinese Farmer, Two African Boys, and a Warlord: Toward a Global Microhistory’, Journal of World History 21 (2010), p. 591.

[2] Bethany Bell, The Austrian castle where Nazis lost to German-US force, 7 May 2015, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32622651>[26 February 2018].

[3] Stephen Harding, The Battle for Castle Itter, 9/11/2008, <http://www.historynet.com/the-battle-for-castle-itter.htm>[26 February 2018].

[4] Ibid.

[5] Bell, Austrian castle.

[6] Donald Lateiner, The Last Battle: When U.S. and German Soldiers joined forces in the Waning Hours of World War II in Europe, 21 March 2014, <http://www.miwsr.com/2014-024.aspx>[26 February 2018].

[7] Stephen Harding, The Last Battle: When U.S. and German Soldiers joined forces in the Waning Hours of World War II in Europe (London, 2013), pp. 96-107.

[8] Bell, Austrian Castle.

[9] Lateiner, Last Battle.

[10] Harding, Castle Itter.

[11] Lateiner, Last Battle.

[12] Harding, Castle Itter.

[13] Lateiner, Last Battle.

[14] Harding, Castle Itter.

[15] Bell, Austrian Castle

[16] Ibid.

[17] Tonio Andrade, ‘A Chinese Farmer, Two African Boys, and a Warlord: Toward a Global Microhistory’, Journal of World History 21 (2010), p. 591.

End of Year Project: The Silk Road?

In last week’s seminar, I was considering two possible project ideas. One related to the Silk Road, and the other related to the India-Pakistan partition. At this stage, I’ve done a bit of research on both these ideas, and will be talking a bit about each to consider which project would be better to pursue for my long project.

One of the projects which I was rather excited to pursue was the Silk Road, and how the British Empire utilised it in their transfer of goods, ideas and textiles across Europe and to Asia. However, this project might not be as feasible as I originally believed, as the Silk Road disintegrated after the fall of the Mongol Empire, and silk trade disintegrated after the collapse of the Safavid Empire in the 1720s. The Silk Road, however, is famous today due to the New Silk Road, which was brought about in 1966, after the British Empire had declined considerably. 1966 came after the independence of most of the British colonies, in exception to a few in Africa and perhaps Hong Kong. As a result, it would be difficult to find source material on how the British transported themselves across the silk road, as the route itself was not being utilised between 1720 and 1966. These were the years of the peak of the British Empire.

Photograph: “Stories From The Silk Road”, depicting the different cultures and peoples who came from different lands. Presented as an exhibition at the Art Institute of Chicago.

Although doing a project on the British Empire utilising the Silk Road might be slightly futile at this stage, what might be particularly intriguing would be to consider how the British Empire spread ideas, textiles and goods across their colonies and to Britain, and how they utilised these goods. For example, it might be interesting to consider their spread of religion, with British missionaries advocating Christianity in certain colonies. For example, Professor Heather Sharkey wrote that “the missionaries played manifold roles in colonial Africa and stimulated forms of cultural, political and religious change”. The British, of course, failed to spread their religion in certain colonies, and it also would be intriguing to investigate why their missions failed in areas like Japan, but succeeded in Africa. Moreover, it could be interesting to consider how the British used spices from India, or silk from China and utilised them across empire. Of course, this would also look into migration, into how the British utilised the people of empire as well.

Thinking about this topic, it seems rather broad. For my project, I’d have to consider narrowing it down to a particular theme, such as the spread of religion, or the spread of ideas, rather than people. Within the spread of ideas, I could include religion, language, ideas of imperialism and nationalism. While I’m still unsure of how I want to pursue this, this would need a lot more research to become a more concrete essay question, and I’d definitely need to narrow it down some more.

Getting started

I’m starting to sink my teeth into some sources that might lead me in a sensical direction for my project, and along the way I’ve come up with several new ideas and buzzwords. These discoveries all lead me to ask myself the same question, though: how do I tie this into transnational history–is it even possible? Right now I’m reading a book by Martha Menchaca called Recovering History, Constructing Race in which Menchaca approaches history with a ‘racial history’ perspective and methodology. Books like this tend to incorporate an ethnographic approach, and I like ethnography–I’d love to try to bring in an ethnographic edge to my project, but I don’t know if the result would be the piece of transnational history I’m looking for. Chicano’s live a transnational reality that gives them a certain liminal ‘otherness’, and this can manifest itself geographically if you zoom your scale in on the border and border studies. That being said, there is a rich cultural history that can be found here.

Let’s try to apply transnational history. Menchaca explains that the ‘Mexican American’s indigenous past is situated both in Mexico and in the Southwest [of the United States]’ (25). In addition (or perhaps because of this), migration is also engrained into their indigenous past, and in the case of Chicano indigenous identity, it differs from its Mexican counterpart–and it goes back to before the Aztecs.

The Mexica depart from Aztlán. From the 16th Century Codex Boturini. Created by an unknown Aztec hand in the 16th century.

Aztlán is a Nahuatl word which means “the land to the north; the land from whence we, the Aztecs, came.” There’s sort of a tension here, though, because this land, Aztlán, is located right (this is where it gets interesting and transnational, so bear with me)….

 

…here.

Seems complicated that It gets even more complicated. During the Chicano Youth Liberation Conference in 1969, Alberto Baltazar Urista (Alurista, as he is known professionally) stated:

In the spirit of a new people…we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán, from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny…With our heart in our hand and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo* Nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the Bronze Continent, we are a Nation. We are a union of free pueblos. We are Aztlán. (cited in Rendón 1971:10).

From here we get the idea of the “Hispanic Homeland” and we have all of these Chicano organizations such as Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) and The Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) (are these transnational organizations?). Believe it or not, a fair number people and organizations, particularly ones of Chicano descent and affiliation, actually want this land reclaimed as the Hispanic Homeland. 

To me this looks like a potential transnational hotspot given the almost constant flow of people that dates back to prehistory, the existence of an identity that affiliates with two nations and ethnic backgrounds equally (at least in theory), and dispute over a giant piece of land and the nation to which it belongs.

 

———————————————————————————————

*A person of combined European and Amerindian descent (https://www.britannica.com/topic/mestizo)

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-myths-legends-americas/lost-city-aztlan-legendary-homeland-aztecs-002550

Menchaca, Martha, Recovering History, Constructing Race: The Indian, Black and White Roots of Mexican Americans (Austin, 2001).

 

Microhistory: The Debate

Micro history gained prominence as a school of historical thought during the 1960s and 70s. It essentially seeks to attribute worldwide historical events to smaller, seemingly insignificant occurrences on a micro level. There is a great debate surrounding the effectiveness of this approach, and whether it offers a new insight into transnational history, or whether it is simply a lottery in deciding whether factors are actually important.

 

However, there is a tendency to believe that macro and micro history work against one another, instead of towards the same goal. Both seek to understand global events but so from a different lense. Indeed, as was discussed in today’s tutorial ‘how much use is a small map without the context of a large map?’. This question is particularly poignant was analyzing the usefulness of micro and macro historical approaches. Rather than working against one another, they work in conjunction and the evidence gained from both schools can be combined to formulate a sophisticated analysis of global events.

 

Heather Streets-Salter analyses the Singapore Mutiny of 1915 and suggests that its apparent irrelevance on the historic stage has arisen from the historical context of the time. The First World War, argued by Streets-Salter, has overshadowed the Sepoy Mutiny and consequently only a handful of historians have further inquired into the causes and consequences of the Singapore Mutiny. My problem with micro history is therefore this, that if historians take into account small details and extrapolate them into the context of larger world debates, then surely, they run the risk of imagining, or over exaggerating the significance of said event. Peltonens argument does well to recognize that ‘individuals or small places are automatically assumed to represent a microelement’. The danger therefore is that micro historians selectively pick areas that correlate to their argument, and use evidence that supports their argument while ignoring the wider picture.

Furthermore, another issue arising from today’s seminar, which is true again when defining transnational history, is the parameters within which micro history operates. Initially, the definition seems rather narrow, microhistory analyses history from a local perspective. However, what are the geographical limits of this angle? When does micro history become macro? Arguably large cities, such as London, are micro in the context of Europe, opposing, towns are macro in the context of the individual. Perhaps then, microhistory is relative and dependent on the ‘lense’ through which is it seen.

Macro micro macro macro micro macro micro micro macro history

Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that these words are basically the same? And also like…so micro means small, right? Which means that macro means big? But then on a camera, right, there is a macro setting. And the macro setting is for taking photos of small things? So I don’t…like I don’t know what I’m supposed to do with that. Does anyone get this? Are camera manufacturers specifically out to mess with history under-grads?

I still don’t know.

I’m serious guys search the word ‘macro’ on any image search engine this is the kind of thing you’ll get TELL ME WHAT IS MACRO ABOUT THIS IT’S RAINDROPS IT LITERALLY DOESN’T GET ANY SMALLER!

‘Asking large questions in small places.’ Charles Joyner, Shared Traditions: Southern History and Folk Culture, p. 1.

It’s a classic – the go-to definition for anyone looking for an introduction to micro-history. And I think it’s quite good. Mainly because it’s much easier to understand than those other two words.

It’s self-explanatory, right? Reduce the scale of analysis, in order to draw wide and far reaching conclusion. So look at something micro, and then use it to talk about something macro. Use the micro to look at the macro. Micro and macro.

Wait, so does that mean we’re doing micro-history or macro-history?

I’m getting confused again.

 

Why not both?

‘A marginal or extreme [historical] case is in some respects typical of a larger area or a group, but in its extremeness differs from the typical case in significant ways’. Matti Peltonen, Clues, Margina and Monads: The Micro-Macro Link in Historical Research, p. 357.

Matti Peltonen seems to think that both makes a lot of sense actually. Perhaps one of the best things about micro-history is its ability to provide a unique keyhole view in to certain ideas, institutions, structures etc. It allows us to connect with actual lived experience and understand historical phenomena from an entirely different angle.

Microhistory provides a level of precision understanding that most other historical techniques simply cannot – and broader historical studies can benefit greatly from this level of depth. Of course, on the flip-side, micro-history generally works to place its studies within a broader historical narrative.

Both. Both? Both is good.

But this is a Transnational history module…

I’m getting there, I’m getting there.

It doesn’t get much more macro than transnational history, right? This is as big as it gets – the movement of people, ideas, goods, and generally things across borders and around the globe. So how on earth can two things that seem so opposed work together.

Well the error is in the assumption. Micro and macro are set up in opposition, but in reality they’re not actually that opposite. Especially in history. I’ve already spoken about how the two are fairly inter-dependent when it comes to their place in history. And I think that can be especially pertinent in transnational history.

I briefly refer you to ‘A Chinese Farmer’ by Tonie Andrade – a great example of how focusing on one individual, confined to the margins of history, can lead to transnational conclusions about connections and interactions between Chinese and Dutch people in Taiwan. But just talking theoretically for a moment – it kind of seems like transnational history is already in the trade of focusing on individuals in this way. By it’s very nature, the primary actors in transnational history are the people who move across historical borders, and the effect that movement has. These people aren’t necessarily famous names, they themselves aren’t operating on a macro level. But they’re part of a macro trend. And that means that studying and understanding them will be invaluable in trying to understand that trend.

So okay, maybe these two words are far too similar to be opposites. But then, maybe they’re not really that opposite after all.