Undermining the supremacy of “shared history” and historicising Time

bender

Having been reading Thomas Bender’s “Introduction” to the edited volume of Rethinking American History in a Global Age, I’d like to deepen our previous conversations on the methodology of transnational history, as well as the rationale behind it.

We’ve often talked about the tension that exists between transnational and national history, but also noted that transnational history needs the nation. Bender provides an insight as to why practitioners of transnational history may like to challenge a nationalist historiography – that is because nations, by default, celebrates commonality. It “affirms a common history for a shared future,” and “represents a particular narrative of social connection that celebrates a sense of having something in common.” (my emphasis) Breaking this down further, we see that nationalist historiography privileges certain narratives over others, which are equally valid and enlightening in their own ways, but left in the dark because they don’t share the effect of fostering a sense of nationhood.

Ranke, Leopold von (1795 - 1886), Deutscher Gelehrter; Leopold von Ranke, Ausschnitt aus einem verschollenen GemŠlde von Julius Friedrich Anton Schrader aus dem Jahre 1868.; GemŠlde, kopiert von Adolf Jebens, 1875 Original: Berlin, Berlin-Museum Standort bitte unbedingt angeben!;
We’ve all heard about Ranke

It is here that historians cast their gaze back on themselves. What is the role that professional discipline of history has played since Leopold von Ranke in the formation of nations? Prasenjit Duara puts it straight, “modern historiography collaborated in enabling the nation-state to define the framework of its self-understanding.” Such writing of history searches for origins – places, events and people where the idea of a nation first germinated, or initial signs emerged. What is implied here is its purpose to construct a narrative that explains a “shared history”, to provide a timeline of the most important battles, powerful states, patriotic fighters that helped to realise the nation that many take for granted today. Crucially, such a this method is teleological and linear. Promoting the transnationalist agenda, Bender argues that historians should “describe a past that can more effectively engage the present,” pointing to a need to “displace focus on origins and allow a greater spatialisation of historical narrative.”

Bender suggests that since Ranke, the writing of history has developed in a way that “the nation became the unit of politics and history,” historians were “committed to evolutionary theories,” and the most crucial is that “peoples not organised in nations” are treated as historical nonentities. To use an example of my own, the Japanese empire portrayed Taiwanese inhabitants in the early days of colonisation as “barbaric”, “uncivilised”, and above all, “backwards” to justify their subjugation, deliberately imposing a temporal difference on a contemporaneous space. This way, history becomes concerned solely with “peoples organised into nations,” the rest falls under the domain of study for anthropologists. Bender proposes that the “dissolution of that division between history and ethnology” (my emphasis) is the reframing of history brought about by the transnational perspective.

The main point here seems to be that transnational history breaks the mould that has so far restricted “meaningful history” to one that explains the nationalist agenda. It “reveals the plenitude of stories, timescales [and] geographies” by breaking history down to its basic constituent parts – time, space, structure, transformation, relations. It serves to “liberate” history so that historians can construct narratives that demonstrate other forms of social unity apart from that of a “nation”, but also doesn’t exclude it. In sum, time is not singular but historicised, and the writing of history is that much richer by it.

Some thoughts on ‘Transnational Movements’

The reading this week has focused on actors and networks. This is particularly interesting for my project as my starting point was the role of African independence leaders as transnational actors and the network of political figures that they were a part of.

One of the texts I found particularly interesting was Ulrike Lindner’s Transnational movements between colonial empires: migrant workers from the British Cape Colony in the German diamond town of Lüderitzbucht. Lindner uses the town of Luderitzbucht as an example of a transnational space as its diamond boom prompted an increase in migration, particularly from the neighbouring British Cape Colony. She argues that examining the transnational movements in this town provides insight into new perspectives on colonial environments and structures, and the lives of marginalised migrant workers. It is perhaps easy to criticize Lindner’s rationale in using the town as an example as any exemplary study comes with the difficulty of justifying how far its conclusions can be applied beyond its specific context. However, the text does bring up some interesting questions, particularly regarding national borders and where they lie. The demarcation of a national border seems simple, yet the text engages with territories that are far removed, geographically, from their colonial motherland. Thus, it is appropriate to ask whether colonies can still be considered part of a nation, making exchanges between the colonies transnational, as opposed to transcolonial. To some extent, the distinction between the two does not seem so important. It could be argued that exchanges between two colonies occur in the same way regardless of whether these exchanges are labelled one way or another. However, the two labels clearly offer different perspectives, though there is indeed overlap between the two. Seeing exchanges between colonies as purely transcolonial perhaps downplays, to some extent, the national context that shaped the administration and the values of specific colonies. As Lindner shows, the German context was particularly important in the way in which Luderitzbucht was run as the values of the administration were not limited to that colony in particularly. Similar policies regarding race and citizenship could be found in Europe. Lindner therefore is justified in her use of the term transnational as it seems to offer a scope for analysing colonial entanglements that is more thorough and all-encompassing. She emphasises the definitions that we have seen in previous weeks which focus on the connections forged by people who transcend borders.

Another, more practical, aspect of the text that I found particularly useful is in the way that it uses contextual information. One of the things that has frustrated me in some of the readings for previous weeks is that it has been difficult to see the transnational ‘value’ of some texts as the sheer specificity of the context provided has overshadowed the point. This, I think, has contributed to my lingering confusion over how to go about practicing transnational history. In contrast to this, I found the Lindner’s text particularly effective at conveying how the situation in Luderitzbucht was transnational as the British context and the German context remained balanced in such a way that the effect each had on the transnational actors in Luderitzbucht was clear throughout.

Agents and Defining Agency (Plus, A Plea for Assistance)

I know we’ve not had our discussion of agents and agency yet, but I had a few quick thoughts I wanted to share. Firstly, I appreciate the basic approach of understanding transnational connections through identification of actors (individuals) and the mapping of those relationships (networks). With regards to my own project, I am leaning towards incorporating a type of actor-network analysis; though not based around an individual (such as a political leader, for example), my understanding of the cultural legacy of the communities built around Regla de Ochá rests upon the paradigm of organization out from the central hub of a santero(a) and the relationships between that leader and the wider group of practitioners. Kind of like the hub and spokes of a wheel, rather than the specificity of a spider with a unique web, if that makes any sense to anyone but me.

Secondly, in researching potential dissertation options, I was directed to an article by Walter Johnson called ‘On Agency’. While not entirely germane to the methodological considerations of this week’s discussion, the article discusses the difficulty in assessing the extent to which certain individuals are capable of shaping human development (that is, of being active actors). This had particular significance to my project this semester, since Regla de Ochá is the inheritance of trafficked Africans and a byproduct of colonialism; as slaves, West Africans in the Caribbean had extremely limited options when it came to determining their lives and were thus restricted from truly driving the sociocultural, political, etc. development that appears to be the hallmark of agency. For me, then, it is key to understand the point at which the people of the communities I am studying made the transition from players in other actors’ actions to actors in their own right. Johnson’s work is a really interesting read if you are interested in social history or the history of slavery, and it raises intriguing questions about the responsibilities we historians have to our subjects as people.

Also, a totally different question: is anyone else struggling massively with word repetition? I must find another word for ‘communities’ or my project is going to make really unpleasant reading. Also, the term ‘Regla de Ochá’ is really clunky as I repeat it; ‘Santería’ is much easier to fit into the rhythm of my writing, but given the fact that many practitioners consider this to be a derogatory and dismissive term, I don’t think I should be using it in an objective historical study. Any feedback on any of this would be massively helpful!

Johnson, Walter, ‘On Agency’, Journal of Social History 37, 1 (2003), pp. 113-124.

Essay Research

I started researching for my essay and found an incredibly relevant thesis from Irena Isbasescu at the University of Amsterdam discussing ‘The European Capitals of Culture: Toward a Common European Identity?”  As I approached this topic and even the entire cultural initiative imposed by the EU from a new perspective, I had many questions of how to structure and narrow my study. Isbasescu’s paper has already given me a great understanding of the benefits and shortcomings the ECC provides for its cities and the union as a whole and clues for writing my own paper.

She states in her introduction that she will first look at the theoretical ideas surrounding identity on a national and European level, then divulge into two case studies looking at Sibiu (2007 capital) and the Ruhr (2010 capital) to present an interesting comparison between the two capitals of culture. I find this structure to be very important for any study dealing with identity and would like to tackle some of the main concepts of her first part. In determining how effective the ECC has been in creating a European culture and shared European identity, identity needs to be adequately defined.

While her areas of focus do present interesting examples, because this is a history essay, I would like to bring the element of transformation into my analysis. As proposed before, I wanted to look at a city from 1985-1995, 1995-2005 and then 2005-2015. While the last city runs the risk of becoming too present, I think identifying and mapping the transformation of European Capitals of Culture over the three decades is crucial to understanding the innovation or limits of the EU.

Although I still have a lot of work ahead of me, this thesis has only furthered my interest in uncovering the creation of a European identity. As national borders are becoming more blurred and transnational ties are creating stronger connections, the ECC still seems to be an impressive initiative on behalf of the EU to insure a peaceful and progressive culture shared by its citizens.

A Look at Ulrike Lindner’s Transnational Perspective

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

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

Why my project is worthwhile and transnational.

This piece is a blend of what I wrote during pair writing at the unconference and my proposal.

Sex is part of the human experience and so is as close to universal as possible, this means that anything connected to sex is by nature a transnational subject matter. An interesting example of this is condoms.
During the Second World War almost all states issued condoms to at least most of their troops in order to prevent devastating outbreaks of venereal disease among their fighting force and the potential infection of women at home and through them unborn citizens . In 1944 however antibiotic treatment for syphilis began to be used which meant that the prevention of VD was not seen as being as important since syphilis was no longer a death sentence in the manner it had been .
Many states in the post war era were impacted by transnational trends such as the rise of the welfare state and healthcare systems, the emergence of youth culture, Americanisation and the impact of the Cold War. The position on condoms arguably varied greatly both between and within states until sometime between the Sexual Revolution(s) of the 1960s and the discovery of the AIDs virus in the 1980s.
During this period of divergence, states could conceivably be grouped by their attitudes to condom use and their experience of the war and its aftermath. This project will focus on the roughly ten year period from the introduction of the new syphilis treatment in 1944 until the beginning of the ‘long 1960s’ by comparing, contrasting and examining the interaction between the official position and social attitude towards condoms in the USA, Britain, France and West Germany. Britain represents the middle ground of a state recovering from the war whilst experiencing major social change leading to a combination of liberalisation and a resurgence of traditional attitudes to issues like condom use. France represents a state devastated by war that was desperately trying to recover in all respects, which may have led to a resistance to change which coupled with a perceived need to raise the birth rate led to restrictions on condoms. West Germany was recovering from the war and there was a need to break from the past and the legacy of the Nazi regime.  Its proximity to the USSR may also have interesting implications relating to attitudes towards condoms. The USA was the emerging hegemon who needed to distance itself ideologically from the USSR but still protect its population, especially its troops overseas and continue to strengthen its economy so it represents a country with a potential gulf between attitudes and practice as well as being of interest due to the phenomenon of Americanisation across Europe over the next several decades.
Sources such as advertisements, propaganda materials, government reports and legislation as well as the likes of popular songs, slang and individual testimonies will be used to uncover not just the official attitude but the popular perception of condoms during this period. These types of sources can tell us a lot more about attitudes towards condoms than usage statistics can ever hope to.
Given that Western European and American attitudes to sex became increasingly liberal as the century progressed it is not unreasonable to expect that social attitudes to condom use would become more tolerant during this period even with some attempts by governments to prevent this. However, that is not to say that condom use will necessarily have increased; other contraceptive methods had been growing in popularity and the perceived reduction in the threat of VD impacted condom use. It is the attitudes both social and official this project is focusing on with the intention of shedding light on different states perceptions of each other on a moral level and to fill a gap in the extensive literature regarding social change in this period. Whilst also providing information regarding social attitudes on an issue that can still be problematic in the present day, potentially yielding useful insight in how these attitudes can be influenced.

 

Primary Sources

Mount, (Edward) Reginald, “Here comes the bride” poster created for the British Ministry of Health circa 1943-1944.  Record held by the Victoria and Albert accessed on 6th March 2016 at: http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O128415/here-comes-the-bride-poster-mount-reginald/

 Secondary Sources

Fisher, Kate; ‘Birth Control, Sex, and Marriage in Briatin 1918-1960. (New York, 2006)

Heineman, Elizabeth, “Towards a History of Transnational Sex in World War II” in Journal of Women’s History, 26(3) 2014 pp.138-141

Klassen, David; Mulhern, Brian; and Swanson, R. Merwin; Revised by Anderson, Linnea M.; “American Social Health Association Records, 1905-2005: History” accessed on 6th March 2016 at: http://special.lib.umn.edu/findaid/xml/sw0045.xml

Papadogiannis, Nikolaos; ‘Introduction’ in ‘Militant around the Clock? Left-wing Youth Politics, Leisure, and Sexuality in Post-Dictatorship Greece 1974-1981’ (2015)

Weeks, Jeffrey; ‘Sex, Politics & Society: Second Edition’ (New York: 1989)

Unconference’s Revelations

This past weekend the class spend time together working in collaborative pairs to help each other practice writing and in doing so also help one another work out some of the continuing challenges and ideas surrounding our projects. Below were just some of the nearly two pages worth of writing that I with the aid of my fellow colleges was able to think of and hopefully address in the future with more research.

When looking at a mass historical period such as the First World War in relation to a specific people and how they are treated one may have issue getting lost in the historiography of the time period. This is one of the challenges I believe I will be facing when approaching this project as one of the main points of this project will be to try and connect the history which I will be researching to the transnational movement of the Gypsies of Europe specifically in France, Italy, Germany and Poland. These countries will be focused on mainly because they are the countries where the largest population of the Romani were and still are found outside of Romania and that also see the most mistreatment from the local people of that country.  But this all leads to my main argument centers around the idea that the treatment of these people before the war is what places them at the margins of the society and this is what leads them to be seen as less than human by the Nazi regime which leads to the Gypsies being placement in concentration camps. And this arguement is my fear as it is so complex and focuses so highly on the movement which leads to the mistreatment of these people before and during the war that I am fearful I will get lost in the history of the movement and treatment rather than connecting these things across time, space, and boarders to make an argument about these people’s history in relation to transnational history.

This all leads to my next obstacle which is trying to link these different countries together by way of the mistreatment of these people. When facing this dilemma my thought is to approach it by stating first and foremost that these people were not confined to one or another country and in fact often many of them moved from two to even three countries through a few years. The next way in which they I will try and approach this is by comparing the treatment of these people both before, during and especially after the war which despite the Romani being in vastly different countries often is very similar as can be seen in film, photography, literature and art. This leads to the obstacle of comparing the treatment of the Jewish people to that of the Romani as unlike the Jews after the war ended the Gypsies treatment did not really improve. The obstacle with this is to not try and compare to much but also to little with the Jews as the paper could be weighed down in such a complex argument but rather to use the comparison as a way in which to highlight the case of the Romani people.

All of this ultimately brings me to the obstacles I will be facing with sources. The good thing to note about sources is how many are available not just with historical articles but also in many different media, photography, film, literature but also across different areas of study such as sociology, anthropology, and even archeology and many of these are not just secondary sources but primary sources as well. However a good majority of these sources are not in English or french the two main languages which I speak. The most obvious obstacle is many of the primary sources for the Romani people is in their language or dialogue, if they’re thoughts are even written down as much of their cultural history is oral.

These are the main obstacles which I believe I will be facing as I continue to research and begin to compile that research into a possible paper.

 

After the Unconference: proceeding with my project

The unconference on Saturday was a very thought-provoking and enjoyable experience. The opportunity to get feedback from my classmates while I was writing certainly helped to bring up some questions that I would not have considered otherwise. From here, it is clear that I need to properly decide on the direction that my project will take. In speaking with Konrad after my proposal presentation (in which I expressed a fear of the daunting scope of Pan-Africanism) he suggested that I consider the relationship between the Pan-African and the national in Africa and how national liberation leaders dealt with this tension. This is a very interesting idea and certainly one I would like to explore as I think it could help me bring in the cultural aspect that I have been looking for since one of the elements of this could be the ways in which national identity was expressed and whether Pan-Africanism had to compete in the same spheres. However, during the unconference, I realised that I am still also interested in the process of migration and its effects on this ideology. At this point, I think I could use my first proposal as a small part of the new direction of my project, yet I am still somewhat unsure as to how to go about exploring this. Therefore, at the unconference I tried to explore some contextual points that may be useful for either direction.

During the morning session, the first point I wanted to address was Pan-Africanism and its relation to other ideological concepts. Confronting Pan-Africanism will be an important aspect of whichever direction my project will take as its influence upon African independence movements and their leaders has been widely recognised. One of the questions that I think it would be interesting to address is how Pan-Africanism differed in its manifestations in each country. Pan-Africanism began as diasporic ideology in the nineteenth century in America and the Caribbean. In the twentieth century, it came into contact with communism, which would play an important role in its development. During the unconference, I wrote about the anti-communist direction of Pan-Africanism in America during the mid-twentieth century, resulting in the publication of key Pan-African thinker George Padmore’s monograph Pan-Africanism or Communism?  I suggested that a key difference between Pan-Africanism in America and Pan-Africanism in Africa is that imperialism was more of a concrete threat to Africa than communism was to America, meaning that Pan-Africanism was a practical alternative. This would mean that it was adapted in order to suit the needs of African national liberation. However, since the unconference I have briefly delved deeper into the relationship between Pan-Africanism and communism and the ways in which this may have impacted upon national liberation, and I have found that the situation was much more complex than I first thought as many Pan-Africanists identified as communists and the comintern had a specific interest in Africa and African liberation. Therefore, it is clear that more research needs to be done into this area as it would be a huge oversight to misrepresent its complexities.

The other point I focused on, during the afternoon session, was how migration affects the perception of national identity in the leaders that I have chosen to look at. Clearly, this point would be more relevant for my original proposal, however I think it could also have some significance for the other idea is it illustrates that perhaps there was no clear distinction between the Pan-African and the national as even the advocates of Pan-Africanism retained close ties with their national identities. For this segment I looked at Kenya’s Jomo Kenyatta and his writing on the Kikuyu people to whom he belonged. I argued that he displays close personal ties to his homeland and Kikuyu identity. It seems significant that this is the focus of his writing during his time abroad, and I suggested that it was partly the experience of travelling during the colonial period that caused him to reflect upon his national identity. The problem that I have come up against with this is how to define what is national? The diversity of ethnic groups across African nations makes me very wary of applying a national identity upon those who identify as belonging to groups such as the Kikuyu. In the most technical sense they are national as they reside within the boundaries of a nation yet this is at risk of being an oversimplification. If I am to explore the tensions between the Pan-African and the national, I will definitely need to give more thought to where these identities fit in.

Briefly, another question I have to answer is how I chose the figures I am looking at. I have been focusing on Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nkrumah at the moment. I chose them because their experiences abroad are very similar, they both become the first presidents of their countries, and their countries represent different parts of Africa as Kenya is in the east, and Ghana in the west. However, I am aware that any conclusions I draw from two countries are not very strong as this is not a big selection. Adding more figures from more countries would be valuable, and there are others to choose from; however, this also makes the project much bigger and I am conscious of the scale.

Project Reshuffling

This time last week when I presented my project proposal to the rest of you I was certain that this is what I would hand in on Friday, and what I would be working from on my actual project. But as I gave my presentation I realised that the scope of my project proposal was just far too big to cover in 5000 words. I knew I had had to go back and readjust everything. So I went back through all the little details and kept checking Konrad’s advice so I could try and produce a manageable proposal. After hours of reshaping I finally managed to submit something that seemed more realistic than my original idea.
However, it’s inevitable that I will have to reshape this idea again at some point. The research I have carried out until now has allowed me to formulate initial ideas for my project, but the more research I do the more I will probably have to have a rethink about the direction of my project. Whereas before this is a thought that absolutely terrified me, now I’m actually feeling a lot less daunted by it. Having already reshuffled my ideas in order to make my project work, I’m now a lot more confident about this happening again in the future. In fact, knowing that the outcome of my project is still not set in stone is actually starting to be quite exciting.

The How and Why of Maoism’s Global Reach

The Unconference on Saturday allowed me to put thoughts on paper – as I ended up doing Pair Writing in both sessions, I chose to write on two aspects of my project. First, trying to come up with part of an argument I want to make in the project. Second, what I perceive to be the main obstacle to my research, why it’s worthwhile to overcome it, how I may go about doing so…etc. For the first part of this, the analytic angle provided by Konrad in his previous post about ‘ideas to sources VS sources to ideas’ is useful. Here is what I wrote during the Unconference (with some bits omitted):

The primary motivation for Afro-Asian radicals when they approached Maoist thought was to respond to the social problems that they faced in their own environments, which meant that capturing the totality of Maoist thought or respecting its integrity is only a secondary concern. The idea that Maoist thought can be ‘exported’ by means of publishing the Little Red Book (or Quotations of Chairman Mao), which was the aim of the Chinese government to propagandise Maoist ideas, and perhaps even replace the Soviet Union as the ‘revolutionary centre of socialism,’ was overly optimistic. […] Certain aspects of Maoism were given emphasis in the context of American leftists, such as Mao’s call for solidarity between ‘all the oppressed people of the world’ which formed an impetus behind Afro-Asian solidarity. I would argue that this was taken up by leftist activists in America because of expedient reasons more than because they thought they were obediently responding to the call of Mao. The most pronounced aspect of Maoism that was appropriated in America was Mao’s call for ‘direct actions’ and ‘actively participating in the revolution’ and so many activists sprang up to serve the needs of the community by providing healthcare, for instance. The backdrop in America of the time, when radical students were in search of an ideology to channel their energies into, and to do their part in the wider scale civil rights movement that Mao’s clarity and imperative language was latched onto. Perhaps under the influence of Mao’s rhetoric, but also Brezhnev’s denunciation of Stalin in the Soviet Union, leftists were disillusioned with the perceived relapse of capitalism and the seeming halting of the socialist revolution. So Mao’s posture as the ‘true heir’ of the socialist revolution, his attempt to create a cult of personality among the socialists in the world, could act as explanations for the enthusiasm with which Maoist thoughts were taken up in the American context.

When I approached this exercise, I wanted to make it a clearly argumentative one. That means that based on my own readings on the topic, and my instincts on how ideas interact with different cultural contexts, I tried to put forth a most plausible argument. On the latter point, Marx famously said:

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.

My research explores the more nuanced, perhaps even mutually influential relationship between ‘ideas’ and their surroundings. The impression that I am receiving a stronger impetus from my instincts will change when I have a better grasp of the political and cultural context in America, as well as careful reading of primary sources by the very agents who were responsible for translating Maoist thoughts into their own languages and actions. My project will also benefit from better understanding of what ‘Maoist thought’ consists of, how it developed from the tradition established by Marx and Lenin. An interesting linkage between the two is, what are the particular aspects/tenets of Maoism that, more than other ideologies, invite and attract adaptation and translation by other cultures or political groups?

As a final point, one of my intentions of the project is to map the spread of Maoist thought in some shape or form across the globe in 1960s and 70s. The first instance when I was introduced to the idea of a ‘global Maoism’ took me by surprise, because a study of the Cultural Revolution in the national context of China can easily lead to an impression that, to put it crudely, the event was the result of a deranged and megalomaniac man’s desperate cling on to power, made possible by a population that fantastically believed in a linear progress to a socialist utopia, ready to wreck any invaluable cultural artifacts and moral codes that ‘stood in their way’. Yet, a project such as mine can show the attractiveness of Maoist thought to other cultural contexts, making the point that it was not only the Chinese at the time who were swept up in a frenzy. But, if my findings also show that professed Maoists in a non-Chinese context actually shed certain tenets of Maoism in order to be effective, or that those who remained faithful to Maoism ultimately failed to attract much support, then it will raise interesting questions about what made the Chinese context particularly conducive to the happening of one of the most destructive movements in 20th century history.

Project Beginnings, Project Hiccups

By Susannah (SMcClanahan) and Eilidh (Yushi)

Where do we start?

Beginning a project can be daunting; this one has already given us some massive headaches, especially because of how unclear ‘transnational history’ is. Is there even a precise definition? Regardless, integrating that concept into our projects presents a few minor challenges.

Susannah: For my project, the clearly transnational phenomenon is the practitioners of Regla de Ocha (RDO); they are trafficked West Africans who lived under Spanish imperial rule alongside native Caribbean peoples. As a consequence, their religious and social traditions necessarily borrow from all of these cultural influences. That transnational result is the basis for my study, but I am more focused on the development of the socio-cultural practices surrounding the practice of RDO, which are more contained within the Americas. So, I don’t know how often I need to reiterate that these people are transnational. I don’t know if there’s a clear answer for me yet, but I’m pleased that I can continue asking the question of my MO3351 friends.

Eilidh: The movement of these people and the knowledge that went with them, is the transnational perspective. It is only from this movement that the religion developed and it was unique from others. For me, and my project, world maps are global simply in the fact that they showcase the world. But does that really make them transnational? They cross national boundaries which is one of the aspects of transnational history that was discussed our first week on the job. I want to compare colonial maps and look at the power that they held in influencing the socio-cultural and political attitudes within the countries. By focusing on various countries and having a comparative perspective, can we showcase the transnational by focusing on the differences in the countries?

Susannah: Eilidh, your project is transnational in its perspective and scope; you are using the global representations of individual nations to understand the power and influence of those nations. It’s a very ‘from above’ view, yeah? Like you’re on the International Space Station. But your idea about focusing on differences between countries makes a lot of sense as well; I think there are several ways in which you can approach this, and you’ve got a really great idea going. I can’t wait to see where you are in a couple weeks!

With all of that muddy confusion in mind, we are focusing on giving ourselves a rough guide as to how to proceed. Knowing where to begin in all of this has been one of the most difficult aspects for us; when you see ‘5000 words’ on a page, it seems incredibly daunting. We think there are several ways to begin your project; none of them are inherently better than the others, but each is suited to a different approach.

  1. Find up to 5 key sources (don’t quote us on this number but don’t try and read everything!) that really speak to the heart of your argument, or even completely contradict what you are thinking but something that you can argue against. Use these as a starting point for formulating your perspective on your topic, and let them inspire you to find others to support your thesis.
  2. In secondary literature, find an argument or a particular historian that appeals to your analysis, and then see where you differ in your approach or understanding. Especially if you are dealing with a topic that has a long tradition of study, there’s probably someone out there who has spotted something similar to you; use their conclusions to examine your own ideas. Also, don’t neglect anthropologists, sociologists, or any other -ologists who might be studying your topic, albeit from a different angle of analysis.
  3. If you already know your thesis and have a VERY clear idea of what you intend to argue, then crafting a rough idea of how to format your information might help to break the project into more manageable chunks.
  4. Or if you have a broad theme or argument already in your head, to pick a time period/event/group etc. that from initial reading has sparked inspiration, something that seems to need investigation.

 

So where to go from there? The library? Seeker? The pub? Perhaps the most meaningful next step is to continue to engage in a dialogue with people outside of your project. They can provide much needed perspective (and commiseration) while we work. Whether historians themselves or someone who has completely no idea what you are talking about, they can often see the gaps that you don’t pick up on. Especially since we tend to get tunnel vision when working on a project for a long time, outside opinions (even criticism) can help us stay on track or make us rethink everything (but in a good way). That, we think, is one of the coolest aspects of this module and this project. In any other module, we wouldn’t have access to this level of collaboration or support, and we have to take advantage of that. Collaboration, from speaking to people or pair writing, is one of the aspects of transnational history that makes it a unique perspective compared to a traditional national study focus. This kind of analysis necessitates communication and cooperation, since it is inherently interdisciplinary, at least in some regards.
With our sources in our brain, discussion held over a couple pints, the best thing (we feel) is to just start writing. Get thoughts onto paper, even if they are completely flawed, and often from there, inspiration will come. The snack writing idea seems perfect for this; a dedicated hour of pouring thoughts onto paper (word vomiting, if you will) will almost certainly leave a few gems from which to can continue to build your argument and polish your final product. From here, you can go back into your sources, get another thousand books from the library, talk to another professor. But at least you’ve begun. That can be the hardest thing to do, so we might as well take that plunge. Headfirst, of course!

Pro-tips for show-and-tell: Adam & Johanna

Effectively using visual and material sources in presentations is important; Certain topics indeed require the use of such material, but all presentations can benefit from the lessons involved in their use. There is nothing more engaging than using multiple senses to take in information, but when poorly handled this can turn into distraction or marginalia. The following are some thoughts and caveats on this topic:

Images cannot speak for themselves. They cannot necessarily make a point for your argument on their own – make clear the point you are trying to make.People always infer subjective things from pictures. It has to be related to the argument and also very involved in the argument. Always engage and discuss historiography and methdology.

Choose wisely which visual aids will be useful. Are they digital or tactile real-life visuals? (eg. a Ryan Reynolds character board v. a slideshow JPEG)

Effectively cropping: you may only need a portion of a larger work to demonstrate your point – however, while you know your own material in full, your audience doesn’t, and may want to see the larger work in full before or after the crop.

CITE ALL YOUR SOURCES! You never know who might be interested and you WILL forget, and visuals and objects deserve the same rigour as textual evidence.

How to make a point drawn from dozens of images in the net, or how to demonstrate a point for which images may be entirely lacking; not clear?

You might encounter problem of knowing how to hand out your props without making them a distraction to both audience and speaker. Think constructively about it and always do trial runs to see how people react best to interacting with visuals.

Trial runs – ask other people about the relevance of your images or which details they pick out as most prominent so you know how your audience might react and be prepared for your ‘most frequently asked questions’, or head them off.

Timing: take the time for how long you spend on showing your visual aids. Make it sharp and do not waste time. If you want your presentation to be short and sharp you may have to cut out visual demonstrations rather than speaking twice as fast.

Knock down people’s preconceptions about your subject if you have to: e.g sailors clothing being pictured as what Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbeans – popular romanticised ideals versus reality which might be different.

Take note of limitations in scale and volume of physical evidence; it is easier to bring a visual aid in the form of a hat, as compared to a full scale iron stove. However, there may be options to bring in a small scale model of said stove, or a real life poster which might still be interactive and tactile ways of demonstrating your points.

Ask interactive questions if you feel like this will add to your presentation, but be aware that this will take up more time. It will involve the audience more actively but might also be disruptive. Make wise decisions and maybe do trial runs with friends.

A visual digital image might be ‘enough’ to illustrate your points, but real life visuals might add that little extra to give the impression that you have really made an effort with your project and are trying your hardest to involve the audience. It emotionally engages the spectators which is crucial in any effective presentation (arguably, depending on the subject of the presentation the way that you emotionally engage differs, but some things like eye-contact is always important).

Danger of getting lost in the details and failing to make wider historical connections. Answering the “so what?” question both in big and small historical terms, constantly.

Be enthusiastic – enjoy what you are doing and the audience will enjoy it too! 😀

Essentially, if you don’t use images or props your presentation will probably be more boring, and if you use them well it will certainly be more engaging, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t think very carefully about how you use them, why, and.how they fit into your larger argument.

Hindsight Bias and Imposing the Transnational

by: Maitreya and Ruadh

Hindsight bias is an issue especially with social and cultural change and emotive events. In our own projects regarding the ICRC during the Second World War and the discourse and social attitudes towards condoms around this period as well we are encountering the issue of hindsight bias.

With the ICRC, it’s very easy to look back at the organization’s actions, or lack thereof, as a massive failure on the part of an important global organization. I have decided to look specifically at the ICRC’s responsibilities and actions towards concentration camp and prisoner of war camp inmates during the war, as this formed the bulk of the committee’s actions during World War II. The Red Cross’ ability to inspect prisoner of war/concentration camps was enshrined in the Geneva Conventions of 1929, which means that perhaps it could have and should have done something for the people who suffered in camps during the war, and it’s easy to look back, seventy-odd years later, and say that the ICRC failed spectacularly in its goal of protecting prisoners of war and innocent victims of conflict. It’s easy for us, as observers and historians, to stand on our historical pedestals and say, ‘well, of course it makes sense that they should have gone into the concentration camps, and it should have been easy for them to speak out against the appalling humanitarian conditions and the clear moral injury caused by mass murder.’ However, this ignores the reality of the political and social circumstances which might have circumscribed the Red Cross’ ability to speak out on humanitarian issues. The links between the ICRC and the Swiss government were, at the time, much closer than they are now, and the officially neutral position of the Swiss government, partnered with the ICRC’s commitment to neutrality, often stopped the organization from speaking out on wrongdoing by the belligerent parties in the war. As well, both the USSR and Japan weren’t signatories to the 1929 Geneva Conventions, and with both countries not exactly functioning as paragons of democracy with vibrant and healthy civil societies, limited the ability for national Red Cross societies to intervene in humanitarian matters concerning POWs. Similarly, the ICRC has not always had the best relationship with national Red Cross societies, and this hampered cooperation with the German Red Cross, which would routinely violate the Geneva Conventions and allow the deportation of Jewish prisoners to concentration camps. As well, it’s somewhat (though I’m not precisely certain to what degree) debatable what the Red Cross knew about events in Europe. In the end, it’s easy enough to condemn the actions of the Red Cross during the war, but we have to be careful to be objective about Red Cross actions and try and look back on the war with a more objective eye. I’m still struggling somewhat with finding a transnational story in this, per se, beneath the obvious look of a global reach of an international organization, and I’m somewhat worried about forcing transnational trends where there aren’t any (again, there’s the hindsight bias operating).

In the modern day we think of condoms as part of a selection of contraceptives but during the first half of the 20th century they were regarded (at least in official publications and the public language of advertisements) as a method of disease prevention more so than as a way of preventing pregnancy as the notion of preventing pregnancy was analogous to an extent of modern moral concerns regarding abortion and emergency ‘morning after’ methods.  At least in Britain during this period, and probably across a lot of nations, condoms and the issue of family planning was seen as a more male concern.  This is evidenced by government propaganda regarding VD and condom use during World War II being targeted at male military personnel and not at civilian or indeed military women and this applied across most countries and indeed despite being standard issue for their male comrades female military units were not issued with condoms.  Civilian adverts for female douches (a method of contraception that was often marketed as for ‘feminine hygiene’)  showed a woman as being ignorant of their use and of a husband as being concerned about this.  Ignorance was seen as a display of feminine innocence; after all women were not supposed to be having premarital and extramarital sex.  In the present day West, family planning and contraception is seen as being more of a female issue largely due to the impact of the contraceptive pill as a female controlled method introduced in the 1960s.  It is difficult to continually remember that people in the decades immediately prior to the 1960s did not known that reliable female controlled contraception was coming, that the baby boom may not be a positive thing and that venereal disease/sexually transmitted infections would cause a threat to global health again before the end of the century.

In transnational history in particular there is the issue of imposing a transnational lens or perspective on a period or trend that to those experiencing it was profoundly national in scope. It’s important to look at how people at the time were experiencing these events and trends, and to try and not look back on emotive events or controversial trends with too much in the way of hindsight. On the other hand, it’s also important to analyze the impact of a given event and be able to offer some sort of moral judgement on history – so perhaps there is a bit of benefit in hindsight, whether it’s looking at the relationship between the baby boom and contraception, or fairly assessing a Red Cross failure during the war. From a methodological standpoint, it’s also important to acknowledge that while transnational trends may not have always been obvious to the people impacted at the time, it’s important for us as historians to see these transnational trends and comment on their existence. There’s a concern that we might be imposing a transnational trend where there wasn’t one before, and trying to figure out how parallel national developments influenced each other and whether there was a cross-national awareness in the first place.

Another concern that we both have is that our projects might turn into comparative history, rather than transnational history, and that instead of looking at trends which transcend borders, we’re only looking at purely national developments that may have resulted from a common event, but from that point, don’t have particularly obvious links. Finding a transnational story in disparate events can be difficult, but no state, no event, and no person exists in a vacuum, whether or not they’re necessarily aware of the transnational network in which they exist. This brings us back to the issue of hindsight bias – does our recognition of this connectivity as historians lead us to make connections that aren’t actually there?
On the other hand are transnational historians, rediscovering and constructing forgotten about or overlooked connections.  Indeed even in moments of more nationally confined developments if these originate from a common point and later again converge are these national developments still of transnational importance?  For example the Second World War could be seen as a common moment in the history of sexual concerns relating to disease which occurred again with the AIDS crisis of the 1980s onwards.  Between this common point of widespread and encouraged condom use during the Second World War and the discovery of the AIDS virus in the 1980s national attitudes towards condoms and the newer forms of contraception diverged and separated out.  With the knowledge of these transnational developments at either end of this period this period of arguably more national rather than transnational events is still of interest to transnational historians.

Project Proposal- The Romani’s Treatment During, Before, and After World War II in Connection to their Lifestyle of Movement

People throughout history have always been on the move. But what happens to a persons identity and treatment by others when this movement is their way of life? Nomads, 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? How do a people who don’t associate themselves with any set nation state or nationality identify themselves? And does this definition which we come up with effect how we view and treat these outliers? In this research project I argue that it is the gypsies way of life that places them at the margins of society and in doing so causes them to be treated poorly by people of a set nation. It is through the history of World War II that I propose to understand this treatment of these people.

It is hard not to know about the cruelty dealt to the Jewish people during World War II between the end of the 1930s and the middle of the 1940s but what many people are not aware of is that this horrendous injustice towards a people was not simply limited to the Jewish community. Nearly one million Gypsies would be placed into concentration camps, marked as unworthy of society, and viewed by the Nazi regime as just as unworthy a people as the Jews. What is however left out, if intentional or not, of the vasty majority of histories covering the treatment of the Gypsies during World War II is not just their mis-treatment during the war but also before and after. Even more than this many historians leave out how these people were treated by other nationalities besides the Germans. The crude treatment of the gypsies often physical as well as verbal was not just inflicted upon them during the war but also long before and long after it had ended. This treatment of these people I believe came from the lack of understanding and acceptance of countryman who saw the Romani as ‘others’, a people who choice to be part of the margins of society which frightened and angered nation-state citizens.

This research project proposes to focus on the movement – both forced and voluntary – of the Gypsies, before, during, and after the Second World War. I will focus on there lifestyle as nomads through movement in connection to their identity as viewed by themselves and nation-state countrymen to show how their marginalization in society ultimately leads to their mistreatment and displacement during before, during, and after the War. The desire of this project is to both understand how war, which already causes people to move, might effect those people whose lives are shaped by migration and also to look at how the treatment of these people, who most likely do not identify with any nation state, might be caused by their way of life. Though I am aware that many sources will be unavailable to myself as I only speak English and French the mass amount of resources in these languages and media format will allow I believe enough information to provide a solid bases for such a study. Through looking at an abundance of sources both secondary and primary not just historical writings but also in sociology, anthropology, archeology, art, literature, photography and film the hope is to trace the transnational history of the Romani in Central Europe specifically Germany, France and Italy to better understand a people’s history with no borders.

Project Proposal – Maoist Thought and the American New Left

Quotations of Chairman Mao, or rather affectionately known as the Little Red Book, is the embodiment of the Chinese Communist Party’s rather successful foray into ‘creating a global language of Maoist revolution’. A government institution, the International Bookstore, distributed more than 800,000 copies of the Little Red Book in 14 languages to 117 countries during the first year of the Cultural Revolution; and between 1966 to 1971, it was printed just over one billion times. The canonical revised edition first appeared in 1965, and contains over 400 quotes arranged into 33 thematic chapters, presenting extracts from Mao Zedong’s writings and speeches from 1929-64. The global influence of Maoist thought is not only testified by the sheer number of the Little Red Book in circulation, but also how it inspired actions and influenced thoughts among leftist groups around the world.

The background to this is the rising status of China as the ‘leading non-white revolutionary country in the world’ following the Sino-Soviet split, and Mao’s scathing anti-revisionist stance against the Soviet Union at the time. This sense of China as the rightful, dutiful successor to lead the socialist revolution in the world was accentuated by well-publicised visits of famous activists such as W. E. B. du Bois, Elaine Brown and Huey Newton, the latter two being leaders of the Black Panther Party (BPP) in the United States. The starting point of my research seeks to understand how their particular experience in China impacted on how they conceive of their own activism and what it should try to achieve. Memoirs and published accounts of their experience in China will be consulted. A focus on the movement of these activists will constitute part of the transnational approach of this project.

Developing this further, my research will look into how Maoist thought is adapted by the American New Left in the 60s and 70s, looking at the specifically community-oriented activism it has engendered and its effect of encouraging an Afro-Asian solidarity. I am particularly interested in specific instances where the ‘travelling theory’ comes into play, that is the ‘dislocation and creative appropriation that attended the translation of Maoist thought into different cultural contexts.’ Existing research on the global reach of Maoist thought has suggested, among many things, the way the Little Red Book ‘provided a textual basis for Third World solidarity in the heart of the First World’ in the case of America and the non-Chinese activists’ selective appropriation of Maoist thought for developing strategies of direct actions. My work will contribute to an understanding of which particular aspects of Maoist thought appealed most strongly to Afro-Asian radicals and the reasons for it, while pointing to the ruptures between the totality of Maoist thought and its appropriated form in another political context. The scope is limited to the inter-relations between Maoist thought, its appropriation by Afro-Asian American radicals, and its wider interactions with New Left activism in general.

My research aims to enrich historiography of the American New Left by honing in on specific tenets or concepts of Maoist thought that were taken up by Afro-Asian activists which can be shown to influence their programs and activities. An important contribution by Mao is that his insistent support for black liberation struggle had the effect of encouraging Asian Americans to unite with their African American counterparts. Organisations such as I Wor Kuen and the Third Arm are modeled after not only the Little Red Book, but the BPP and other Maoist-inspired political groups as well. I’d argue that the inspiration for these Maoist organisations is never straightforward, but multifarious and complex, as well as contextualised by local conditions. By looking into how these organisations came into being, their professed ideologies, the people behind them and uncovering their inter-relations, I hope to be able to project a network of activism that admits of transnational influence.

Many community-oriented organisations sprang up in the period from 1967 to 1971, formed by radical students and working-class youths. This included social services such as childcare programs and health clinics, as well as ideologically-based bookstore, low-cost hotel and even paramilitary-style organisation. These organisations often have concrete goals that serve very much ‘local’ needs. This particularly localised style of activism is inspired by Mao’s ‘Serve the People Edict,’ and his view that one must take part in the revolution to learn the ‘theory and methods of revolution.’ Yet, this also brings about the problem of prioritising ‘the local’ at the expense of the ideological and the international. For instance, the BPP has been criticised for its ‘short-sighted application’ of Maoist thought and overlooking the ‘questions of revolutionary philosophy and ideology.’ This is another aspect of this project’s discussion on the ‘dislocation’ of Maoist thought in another cultural context. Thus, we can see the limits of ‘exporting revolution’ and the importance of unique cultural contexts to the transpiration of political ideologies.