Overseas history as an emerging discipline after World War Two began to unearth the idea that non-European histories were autonomous and specific. This new school of thought, with a non-threatening name, allowed the investigation into Africa and Asia without a direct challenge to the establishment. This course of inquiry blossomed into many specific historical tracks, and ideally the comparison of these unique tracks lead to a more macro social narrative, rather than an exclusively European one. This is a fascinating concept, though it may seem obvious to a postmodern historian.
From a western perspective Africa has only experienced traditional history since being recorded by modern western historians. Also, Asian, Australian, and American prehistory has not been given historical weight due to cultural methodological chauvinism. The study of history has been largely defined as in relation to its proximity to the west and more specifically the Imperial west. How do colonists decolonize history? The idea that Wesseling puts forth that rather than Imperialism being a sign of strength and the highest form of capitalism, that instead is was a demonstration of weak European economies is fascinating as it challenges not only Lenin’s theories but eviscerates the hollow claims of the colonists as true powers. In knocking down the overarching opinion that European powers were truly great reflections of dominance and expansion, it gives an opportunity for the realization of non-Europeans of a greater sense and likelihood of historic agency. It reduces the impact of the colonial west to an agent of change, rather the agent of change.
Keletso Atkins’ 1988 article, Preindustrial Temporal Concepts and Labour Discipline in Nineteenth Century Colonial Natal, is an example of an attempt to validate and construct African history during the time of the 19th century realizing that within the construct of European history there is a unique African voice of experience which harkens back to a cosmology which existed before colonists arrived. As E.P. Thompson had written about the temporal reorientation of the English working class during the industrial revolution. Atkins writes about this same development in Natal with the Nguni people. The actors in Atkins’s article are diverse; The Nguni people, the Nguni concept of time, the western concept of time, the work ethics of both groups and their similarities and differences, specifically the definition of the workday, and the mission churches. Atkins believe that Kafir time, as he defines it was based on the cycles of the moon and the sun, not by calendar days with corresponding hours and minutes like that of the Europeans. This of course created a struggle in colonial Natal. The need for Kafir labour as a tool for profit, production, and increased capital by the colonists is seen as a major causality by Atkins in conjunction with The Kafir’s desire to earn a living to keep thriving in a changing labour based economy. He also contends that the mission churches played a significant role in translating the western concept of the workweek and Sabbath. Christianity could be seem as a causality in this cases inasmuch as it links to the individual’s concept of spiritual salvation. Atkins surely believes that Kafirs employed a tremendous level of agency making the point that the attempt of colonists to impose a foreign sense of time upon Nguni was resisted and largely unsuccessful, based on cultural cosmologies that we impossible to alter at will, both in the urban and rural areas. He checks this theory with those of the time period, as well as a diverse group of modern historians.
Atkins’ narrative is comprised of many different voices. He is multidisciplined in his approach to the article. His use of Edward Hall when exploring fundamental concepts of time in relation to basic cultural identity and function not only demonstrated his modern literacy, but also underscored his multidisciplinary approach to theories of cultural adjustment. He includes these theories, other historians, oral history, and religious texts in his source base. He writes from what might be called a long duree primarily, but includes more medium range changes as a demonstration of the development of an evolving labour consciousness and utilizes some specific events and conflicts that pinpoint important changes in behavior by the workers. An example of this would be the Kafir winning of Togt Regulations that was victory for workers who demanded holiday and overtime pay.
The sources that Akins’s uses in his article as varied. Obviously he credits E.P Thompson as a modern historian, who roots his arguments in a post-modern foundation mixing British with American and South African. In his attempt to understand the Kafir perspective and its struggle with western time keeping and Labour forces, he relies heavily upon documents of the time, He focuses on writings from individuals who had direct contact with the Zulus from magistrates to cane plantation owners to labor brokers, He refers to individuals who wrote timely prescriptive manuals for colonists. He also explores linguists and or dictionary makers of the time who were able to articulate the differences between English and Zulu especially in relation to expressed concepts of time. He further uses the transcripts of local ministers that reflect the nature and work patterns of the Zulu as a people in general. He uses an extensive number of labor reports from magistrates in cities like Durban during the 1850’s.
Atkins is being careful to not invent the history that was not recorded directly by the Europeans, but is basing his exploration on sound theories and the overlapping of many experiences on a single issue. By making sure his sources are varied and expansive, he is allowing for a continuity of experience to provide a strong gesture to historical truth. I think of it in a metaphor. Like reconstructing a lost theatre hall based on what can be told by actors, audience, and carpenters alike at the time. If it existed a century ago, one would have to know what to look for, what was fantasy or fact due to technical limitations, what was paid PR and hype, and what was likely realistic. One would have to be versed on the subject as an expert before being able to make such judgments on sources and controversies. This is a combination of interdisciplinary breadth as well as a depth of subject specific knowledge. This implies the need to be a sociologist as well as historian, and further suggests that the two are not easily conceptually separated.
How does one write or talk about the history of colonial cultures without replicating or rejecting an intellectual historical colonization by nature of method of inquiry? Henk Wesseling makes a great argument challenging the fundamental assumptions behind concepts not only of Imperial history, but overseas history in general. The answer is to train others in methods that can recognize and distill the history of omitted groups though careful use of sources and methodology with a belief that the process itself speaks to a higher calling of history which can only be realized though complete and total inclusion. As historians become more aware of the need to enliven the accuracy of the discipline, it could be very possible to examine certain time periods though a new and inclusive lens that can generate needed layers of detail and narrative about the power of non-western human agency initially, and to general human agency over any stretch of time. This could be described as perhaps as global sociology, the organic landscape of human evolution, or possibly the legacy of a self-reflective, self-aware dynamic intelligence.
No comments:
Post a Comment