TheArchivesofDecolonization
Introduction FARINAMIR
D ECOLONIZATIONISSURELYAMONG themostsignificanteventsorprocessesofthe twentiethcentury.Inthespanoflessthantwodecades,longstandingEuropeanempiresinAfrica,Asia,andbeyondwerelargelydismantledtocreatedozensofnew nation-states,andwiththemanewgeopoliticallandscape.Themagnitudeofchange wasimmense:inAfricaalone,morethanfiftynewstateswerecreated,beginningin the1950s. 1 TheUnitedNationsprovidesanotherexampleofthescaleofgeopolitical transformationthatdecolonizationprecipitated.Fromitsinceptionin1945to2002, membershipintheUnitedNationswentfrom51to191;“mostofthesenewmembers,”RaymondBettsnotesinhisstudy Decolonization ,“camefromthefailedcolonialempires.” 2 Indeed,onecansuggestwithouthyperbolethatdecolonizationfundamentallyshapestheworldwelivein.
Whilethismaybetrue,suchanaccountingemphasizesdecolonizationasapoliticalevent,one“wherebycolonialpowerstransferredinstitutionalandlegalcontrol overtheirterritoriesanddependenciestoindigenouslybased,formallysovereign nation-states.” 3 Afocusonthis“transferofpower”wasoncethemainstayofhistoriographyondecolonization,butasmorerecentscholarshiphasrecognized,such afocusnarrowsourunderstandingofdecolonization,limitingittoanevent,and tyingittoamoment.Decolonizationinthismodeofnarrationisdiscrete,delimited, finite;fromanationalistperspective,decolonizationbecomesamomentofarrival. Theformaltransferofpowerfromcolonialtonationalgovernmentsisofcourse crucialtoanyunderstandingofdecolonization.Butdecolonization—foralltheelegantsimplicityoftheterm—ismorecomplexanddifficulttodefine;thetransfer ofpowerisoneaspectofabroaderhistoricalprocess,theexactcontoursofwhich havethusfardefiedanyhistoriographicalconsensus. 4
1 JamesD.LeSueur,“AnIntroduction:ReadingDecolonization,”inLeSueur,ed., TheDecolonizationReader (NewYork,2003),1–6,here2.
2 RaymondF.Betts, Decolonization,2nded.(NewYork,2004),2.
3 PrasenjitDuara,“Introduction:TheDecolonizationofAsiaandAfricaintheTwentiethCentury,” inDuara,ed., Decolonization:PerspectivesfromNowandThen (NewYork,2003),1–18,here2.
4 HeremyreadingofthehistoriographydiffersfromthatofAshleyJackson(and,Iimagine,others), whowrites,“decolonisationisoneofthefewfieldsofhistoricalresearchwhere,withtheexceptionof afewpolemicistsonthefringes,consensusamongexpertsissomethingofanorm.”Jackson,reviewof DecolonizationandItsImpact:AComparativeApproachtotheEndoftheColonialEmpires byMartin Shipway, EnglishHistoricalReview 124,no.507(2009):503–505,here504.
Decolonizationmaybemorethanthetransferofpower,buthowcapaciousthe term(anditsaccompanyinganalytics)shouldbeisamatterofdebate.Onescholar hasrecentlyargued,forexample,thatdecolonizationshouldencompasspost–World WarIIprocessesindominionssuchasCanada,Australia,andSouthAfrica,despite thefactthattheyenjoyedself-rule. 5 AnotherhassuggestedinthecontextofIran, whichwasnotformallycolonized,thatdecolonizationbedefinedas“atwentiethcenturypolicy...aimedatretaining,transforming,orreassertinginfluenceinthe MiddleEast.” 6 Repurposingdecolonizationinthiswaymaybeeffectivefortheanalysisoflocaland/ornationalhistories,butwheredotheboundsbecomesoexpansive thatthetermceasestobemeaningfulanalytically?
Partofthecomplexityposedbydecolonization,asPrasenjitDuarawritesinhis influentialvolumeonthesubject, Decolonization:PerspectivesfromNowandThen , isthatit“isneitheracoherenteventsuchastheRussianRevolution,norawelldefinedphenomenonlikefascism.Thetimingsandpatternsofdecolonizationwere extremelyvaried,andthegoalsofthemovementsindifferentcountrieswerenot alwaysconsistentwitheachother.” 7 Writingabouttheprocessasawhole—thatis, beyondnationalorimperialhistories—presentsparticularchallenges.Itistherefore notsurprisingthatthereisnoprevailinghistoriographicalconsensusaboutthedefinitionofdecolonization,whatprecipitatedit,whatitseffectswere(andare),or whethersocieties—oreven,forthatmatter,states—haveachievedit.Evenforthose scholarswhoidentifydecolonizationaslargelyatwentieth-centuryphenomenon,the temporalityoftheprocessvariesquitewidely.InDuara’svolume,hedefinesthe book’s“ core periodandregion”ofconsiderationasAfricaandAsiainthetwentieth century.ButratherthantakeWorldWarIashisstartingpoint,asmosthistorians do,heidentifiestheJapanesevictoryovertsaristRussiaintheWarof1905asthe symbolicstartingpointoftheprocess,andtheBandungConferenceof1955as“the eventsymbolizingtheculminationofthismovement.” 8 RaymondBetts’s Decolonization alsofocusesonthetwentiethcentury,buthechoosesWorldWarIashis startingpoint,andalthoughhisnarrativeendswithKenyanindependencein1963, heasserts:“Onematteriscertain:inthepoliticalsenseoftheword,decolonization isoveranddonewith.Theexceptionalmomentannouncingthefactoccurredat midnightonJune30,1997,thebeginningofthefirstdayofHongKong’sreversion toChinaafteracentury-and-a-halfofBritishcontrol.” 9 Arecentstudyanalyzingthe historiesoftheBritish,French,Dutch,Belgian,andPortugueseempiresconcludes in1975,withtheendofPortuguesecolonialisminAfrica. 10 Myexamplescould abound,butthepointisclear:everystudyofdecolonizationpresentsatemporal framethatdependsontheauthors’conceptualizationofdecolonizationandtheimperial/geographicalcontextchosenasthelocusofstudy.
Whilethismultiplicity—aproliferationofunderstandingsofwhatconstitutesde-
5 A.G.Hopkins,“RethinkingDecolonization,” PastandPresent,no.200(2008):211–247.
6 JuanRomero,“DecolonizationinReverse:TheIranianOilCrisisof1951–53,” MiddleEastern Studies 51,no.3(2015):462–488,here462.
7 Duara,“Introduction,”1.
8 Ibid.,2–3,emphasisintheoriginal.
9 Betts, Decolonization,1.
10 MartinThomas,BobMoore,andL.J.Butler, TheCrisesofEmpire:DecolonizationandEurope’s ImperialNationStates,1918–1975 (London,2008).
colonizationandapproachestostudyingit—mightbeconsideredbysomeafailing ofscholarshiponthesubject,pushingtheparametersofdecolonizationsobroadly astochallengeitsanalyticusefulness,Iseeitratherasasignofthefield’sintellectual vigor.Thepushoutward,asitwere,reflectsinlargeparttheimpactofvariousintellectualcurrentsonhistoriansofdecolonizationoverthepasttwentyyears.The impactofculturalhistory,postcolonialstudies,subalternstudies,andthenewimperialhistoryisclearlyvisibleintheshiftawayfromhistoriesofthe“transferof power”(whichinvariablyreflectedmetropolitandynamicsifnotimperatives)tohistoriesthatattempttoreflectbothmetropolitanandindigenousperspectivesand contingencies,addresstheinterpenetrationofcolonialandmetropolitanhistories, engagequestionsofpower(beyondceremonial“transfers”),andareattentiveto issuesofrace,identity,andrepresentation. 11 Studiesofdecolonizationhavebeen invigoratedbythesebroaderintellectualtrendsandareinturncontributingtothese fieldsinsignificantways.Indeed,decolonizationappearstohavegainedcurrencyas asiteofscholarlyinquiryinthelastdecadeinparticular,ifthepublicationinquick successionofanumberof“readers,”“companions,”andhistoriesisanyindication. 12
T HEPRESENTROUNDTABLEREFLECTS thenewspiritinscholarshipondecolonization, whichquestionsratherthanassumeswhatitmeans,andinterrogatesitshistoriesin diversesettingsandthroughvariedlenses.JordannaBailkin,forexample,opensher essaybyposingtwofundamentalquestionsthatdrivethestudyofdecolonization today.“What is decolonization?”sheasks,and“Whereandwhendowebelievethat ittook(orisstilltaking)place?”Shealsoidentifiesoneoftheprincipalchallenges ofstudyingdecolonization,as“evenforasingleempire,therewerealwaysmultiple decolonizations,takingplaceondifferenttimelinesforvariedpopulations.”The essaysinthisroundtableallsharetheperspectivesuggestedbythesequestionsand anattentiontothelocal.Putanotherway,theyshareatheoreticalorientationtoa broaderunderstandingofdecolonization,whiletheyanalyzeitinthecontextofdiverseimperialformations,colonialandmetropolitansettings,andcommunities.At thesametime,theyalsostrikeanimportantbalancebetweenthemultiplescalesof analysisthroughwhichdecolonizationcanmosteffectivelybeunderstood.Thereis thebroadandsharedhistoryofdecolonizationthatspansempiresandcontinents,
11 Foraparticularlycogentanalysisofthepotentialbenefitsandlimitsofpostcolonialstudiesfor imperialhistory(andbyextensiondecolonization),seeDaneKennedy,“ImperialHistoryandPostColonialTheory,” JournalofImperialandCommonwealthHistory 24,no.3(1996):345–363.Foravolume thatcapturesthepromise(aswellasthepitfalls)ofthenewimperialhistory,seeKathleenWilson,ed., ANewImperialHistory:Culture,IdentityandModernityinBritainandtheEmpire,1660–1840 (Cambridge, 2004).SeealsoStephenHowe,ed., TheNewImperialHistoriesReader (NewYork,2009);andDurba Ghosh,“AnotherSetofImperialTurns?,” AmericanHistoricalReview 117,no.3(June2012):772–793.
12 SeeBetts, Decolonization;M.E.Chamberlain, Decolonization,2nded.(Oxford,1999);Duara, Decolonization;LeSueur, TheDecolonizationReader ;DietmarRothermund, TheRoutledgeCompanion toDecolonization (NewYork,2006);ToddShepard, VoicesofDecolonization:ABriefHistorywithDocuments (NewYork,2015).Forregionallyorientedstudies,seeJohnD.Hargreaves, Decolonizationin Africa,2nded.(1996;repr.,NewYork,2014);ChristopherE.GoschaandChristianOstermann,eds., ConnectedHistories:DecolonizationandtheColdWarinSoutheastAsia,1945–1962 (Stanford,Calif., 2009);MarcFrey,RonaldW.Pruessen,andTanTaiYong,eds., TheTransformationofSoutheastAsia: InternationalPerspectivesonDecolonization (2003;repr.,NewYork,2015).Nationalhistoriesofdecolonizationaretoonumeroustobeusefullyreferencedhere,buttheyabound.
andtherearethelocalhistoriesthatsimultaneouslyconstituteit.Theessaysthread thesetwolevelsofanalysistogetherinproductiveways,sothatwegaininsightsinto British,Algerian,French,Kenyan,MiddleEastern,Jewish,andAmericanhistory, aswellasintodecolonizationmoregenerally.
Whileinformedbythefermentinthestudyofdecolonization,thisroundtable alsomakesasignificantcontributiontothefieldbydrawingitintomoreexplicit dialoguewithscholarshiponarchivesandtheproductionofhistory.13 Theessays here,then,takeaveryparticularapproach,witheachfocusingexplicitlyontherelationshipbetweenthearchivesofdecolonization(broadlyconceivedinsomecases, asinH.ReubenNeptune’scontribution)andthehistoryofdecolonization.Bailkin articulatesthevalueoftheapproacheloquently:“Conceivingofdecolonizationas anarchivalevent,”shesuggests,“canenrichourunderstandingofitsdiversehistoriesandgiveitanewmultidimensionality.”Indeed,takentogether,theessaysin thisroundtableadmirablyaccomplishthistask.
Bailkin’sessay,“WhereDidtheEmpireGo?ArchivesandDecolonizationin Britain,”bothlaysoutamanifestofortheroundtable,asitwere—toconsiderdecolonizationasanarchivalevent—andpowerfullyillustratesthevalueofforegroundinganalysisofthearchivesofdecolonization.Herlaunchingpointisadiscussionofthescholarlydepthofworkoncolonialarchivesandtheirproduction, drawingattentiontothecentralityofthisthemeinscholarlyanalysesofcolonialism. ThatBailkincitesscholarshipthatisamongthemostinfluentialoncolonialismwrit large,includingworksbyC.A.Bayly,AntoinetteBurton,BernardCohn,Nicholas Dirks,andAnnLauraStoler,furtherunderscoresherpoint—namely,thatwhilethe archivehasbeencentraltoanalysesofcolonialism,thisscholarship“oftencutsoff abruptlywiththetransitiontoindependence,asifarchivesbecamemorestraight-
13 See,inparticular,AnnLauraStoler, AlongtheArchivalGrain:EpistemicAnxietiesandColonial CommonSense (Princeton,N.J.,2009);andFrancisX.BlouinandWilliamG.Rosenberg,eds., Archives, Documentation,andInstitutionsofSocialMemory:EssaysfromtheSawyerSeminar (AnnArbor,Mich., 2007).BothMichelFoucaultandJacquesDerridahavebeensignificanttocriticalinquiryintothearchive.SeeFoucault, TheArchaeologyofKnowledgeandtheDiscourseofLanguage,trans.A.M.Sheridan Smith(NewYork,1972);andDerrida, ArchiveFever:AFreudianImpression,trans.EricPrenowitz(Chicago,1998).SouthAsianhistoriographyhasbeenparticularlyinfluentialincomplicatingourunderstandingofarchivesandhowtoreadthem.Subalternstudieslaidimportantfoundationsinthisregard, particularlyforhowtoreadcolonialarchivestoproducenarrativesneithercolonialnornationalist.For importantearlyhistoriographicalstatements,seeRanajitGuha,“OnSomeAspectsoftheHistoriographyofColonialIndia,”inRanajitGuhaandGayatriChakravortySpivak,eds., SelectedSubaltern Studies (NewYork,1988),37–44;andGuha,“TheProseofCounter-Insurgency,”ibid.,45–86.Oneof thefinestmonographsemployingsubalternstudiesmethodologyremainsShahidAmin, Event,Metaphor, Memory:ChauriChaura,1922–1992 (Berkeley,Calif.,1995).SubsequentinterventionsfromSouthAsian studiesincludeArjunAppadurai,“ArchiveandAspiration,”inJokeBrouwerandArjenMulder,eds., InformationIsAlive (Rotterdam,2003),14–25;AnjaliArondekar, FortheRecord:OnSexualityandthe ColonialArchiveinIndia (Durham,N.C.,2009);AntoinetteBurton, DwellingintheArchive:Women WritingHouse,Home,andHistoryinLateColonialIndia (NewYork,2003);NicholasB.Dirks,“Annals oftheArchive:EthnographicNotesontheSourcesofHistory,”inBrianKeithAxel,ed., Fromthe Margins:HistoricalAnthropologyandItsFutures (Durham,N.C.,2002),47–65;DurbaGhosh,“Decoding theNameless:Gender,SubjectivityandHistoricalMethodologiesinReadingtheArchivesofColonial India,”inWilson, ANewImperialHistory,297–316;andBettyJoseph, ReadingtheEastIndiaCompany, 1720–1840:ColonialCurrenciesofGender (Chicago,2004).Muchofthisscholarshipisfocusedonthe colonialarchive.Alsorelevantisrecenthistoriographythatshiftsemphasisfromthecolonialarchive totheuseofavarietyofvernacularsources,withaconcomitantshifttoananalysisofindigenous historicalimagination.See,forexample,PrachiDeshpande, CreativePasts:HistoricalMemoryandIdentityinWesternIndia,1700–1960 (NewYork,2007);andChitralekhaZutshi, Kashmir’sContestedPasts: Narratives,SacredGeographies,andtheHistoricalImagination (NewDelhi,2014).
forwardatthisjuncture.”Ofcourse,thiswashardlythecase.Ifanything,heressay highlights—asdoothersintheroundtable—thatquestionsofwhattoarchive,and where,becameevermorecomplicatedinthecontextofdecolonization.
“WhereDidtheEmpireGo?”interrogateswhatarchivesareusedtowritethe historyofdecolonization,ontheonehand,andexaminestheimpactofdecolonizationinBritishsociety,ontheother.Intheprocess,Bailkinqueriesanumberof traditionalemphasesandperspectivesinexistingapproachestodecolonization. Pushingagainstthedepictionofthemetropoleasthecenterofpoliticalpowerfrom whichhighpoliticsandstatecraftemanated,Bailkinfocusesontheindividualand onthesocialexperienceofdecolonizationinthe(nowformer)imperialcenter.Her particularinnovationliesinfindingahistoryofdecolonizationinanarchivenot intendedforthatpurpose.WorkingintheBritishNationalArchivesintherecords ofdomesticinstitutions—ratherthanwithForeignOffice,ForeignandCommonwealthOffice,BritishColonialOffice,orIndiaOfficefiles,forexample—revealsan unexpectedstoryof“howdecolonizationtransformedpersonalandfamiliallife.”
Bailkinpresentsahistoryoftheinterconnectionsbetweendecolonizationandthe welfarestateinBritainthatdefythekindsofneatdivisionsbetweenBritainandthe empirethattheorganizationofthearchivesitselfperpetuates.
ToddShepard’sessay,“‘OfSovereignty’:DisputedArchives,‘WhollyModern’ Archives,andthePost-DecolonizationFrenchandAlgerianRepublics,1962–2012,” focusesontherolethatarchivesplayinconstitutingnationalidentities.Shepard frameshisdiscussionaroundanarchivalcontroversy(“theDispute”:“lecontentieux”)betweentheFrenchandAlgerianstatesabouttherightfulplaceofthestate archiveofFrench-ruledAlgeria(1830–1962).Atissueisavastarrayofdocuments— anywherefrom53,000to200,000cartons,dependingonFrenchorAlgeriansources, respectively—thatweretakenfromAlgeriatoFranceattheendofempire.Algerian proponentsarguethatthesedocumentsbelongtoAlgeriaandshouldberepatriated. ShepardsituatestheDisputeinabroadercontextofthesignificanceofarchivesas keyinstitutionsofmodernstates,andparticularlytheroletheyplayin“definingwhat nationalsovereigntymeanspost-decolonization.”InAlgeria,Shepardshowsthatthe DisputeisintertwinedwithcomplexissuesofsovereigntythatrelatebothtoaFrench colonialpastandtopostcolonialpoliticsinAlgeria,arguingthat“thearchivesappear toofferthepossibilityofreturningsovereigntytothepeople.”Thesesamearchives playasimilarroleinFrance,however,wherethismaterialhasbecomelinkedin particularwaystoideasofFrenchsovereignty.Ifsovereigntyisfundamentaltoany understandingofdecolonization,thenShepardshowshowarchivesandtheirconstitution,inbothformercolonyandimperialcenter,aredeeplyimplicatedinhow sovereigntyisimaginedandconstituted.
CarolineElkins’sessay,“LookingbeyondMauMau:ArchivingViolenceinthe EraofDecolonization,”complementsShepard’sessay,openinginasimilarveinwith referencetothedestructionofarchivesbycolonialstateofficialsontheirimpending retreat.Herreflectionspushinaslightlydifferentdirection,however,tonotehow asaresultofcolonialaction,“gapingholesbecameanimperiallegacyinpostcolonial archives,”andhowtheincompletearchivesofpostcolonialstateswould,intime, “cometoreflecttheseemingdisorderofthepostcolony.”Thefragmentarynature ofthearchivesoevidentinpostcolonialstates,shepointsout,ismaskedinthe
archivesofimperialcenters.ReflectingonBritain’sNationalArchivesatKew,she notes,“Fromthecarefullymanagedfiles,asenseemergesofacoherentdecolonizationprocess.”Thatcoherencewentunchallengedbyearliergenerationsofhistoriansoftheendofempire,sheargues,whoreflectedintheirhistories“thatwhich thearchivesbeckonedusnotonlytoremember,butalsotoforget.”
LikeBailkin,Elkinspushesagainstthestorythearchivemostobviouslywantsto tell.Byrecoveringthehistoryofsystematicviolenceandforcedlaborinlatecolonial Kenyathroughhercomprehensive2005accountoftheMauMaudetentioncamps, Elkinspenetrated“thefield’scodeofsilence”ontheseissues. 14 Inthisroundtable, sheconsidersherroleasanexpertwitnessinacaseheardbeforeLondon’sHigh Courtin2011,inwhichfiveKenyansallegedabuseatthehandsofBritishcolonial authoritiesduringtheMauMauEmergencyof1952–1960.ReflectingonherinvolvementinthecaseprovidesElkinsanopportunitytoaddressthesystematicdestructionofarchivalmaterialbyBritishcolonialauthoritiesattheendofempire.The fragmentaryevidenceofwholesaledestructionacrosstheempirethatshecompiles hereisastounding,andsuggeststheformidablechallengesthatfacethehistorianof thedecolonizationoftheBritishEmpire.ButElkinsdoesnotdespair.Rather,she providesimportantmethodologicalinsightsthatcanhelpone“makebettersenseof theashesandfragmentsthathaverecentlybeenlaidbare,aswellasthelogics,actors, andprocessesofBritishcolonialviolenceattheendofempire.”
OmniaElShakry’scontributionfocusesonanotheraspectoftheproblemofmissing, incomplete,anddestroyedarchives.“‘HistorywithoutDocuments’:TheVexedArchives ofDecolonizationintheMiddleEast”addressestwocrucialissuesinMiddleEasthistoriography:the(increasing)inaccessibilityofarchives,andwhatshecalls“thecompositionallogicsofarchivalimaginaries.”Inthewakeofeventssuchasthereassertion ofmilitarypowerinEgyptdespitethe“ArabSpring”of2010–2011,thenear-destruction ofSyriainitscivilwar,andthepillageofarchivesduringtheU.S.invasionofIraq,El Shakry’sreferencetoa“historywithoutdocuments”mayincreasinglybetherealityof MiddleEasternhistoriography.Suchcontemporaryproblemsarenotwithouttheirantecedents,however,andshealertsustothealternatemethodologiesthatMiddleEast historianshaveemployedinthefaceofthepaucityof(accessto)thewrittenrecord.El ShakryarguesthatmoresignificantthanthequestionofaccessishowtheverypossibilitiesforarchiveshavebeencircumscribedintheMiddleEastbystructuresofthinking. Heranalysisfocusesontwotropes.Thefirstoftheseis“the nahda/naksa (awakening/ catastrophe)narrative,”whichstructuresArabhistoryaround“afin-de-sie`clecultural renaissance”and“atragicpost-1967decline.”Thesecondis“an‘incommensurabledivide’betweenIslamismandsecularnationalismintheeraofdecolonization.”Inarguing thatwethinkofdecolonizationas“anongoingprocessandseriesofstrugglesratherthan afiniteevent,”ElShakrysuggeststhatthesetropesimpingeonwhatconstitutesthe archivesofdecolonization—particularlywhichthinkersgetincludedandwhichexcised fromthem—whichinturnimpactsthepossibilitiesformorecomplexhistoriesofthis process.ElShakryfocusesontwointellectuals,theIslamistSayyidQutbandthesecular politicaltheoristIlyasMurqus.NeitherhasfiguredprominentlyindiscussionsofdecolonizationintheMiddleEast.Sheargues,however,that“theywerepartofagroup
14 CarolineElkins, ImperialReckoning:TheUntoldStoryoftheEndofEmpireinKenya (NewYork, 2005).
ofthinkersandactivistswhoconceptualizeddecolonizationassimultaneouslyaquestion ofpoliticalrevolution...andsocialrevolution.”ElShakrynotonlyinsiststhattheybe includedinthearchivesofdecolonization,butalso—andcritically—thattheybeunderstoodasoccupying“thesamediscursiveterrain.”“Toarchivethemseparately,”as thenormative“archivalimaginary”ofMiddleEasternhistorydemands,shesuggests, wouldbe“toreifythedistinctionbetweenIslamicandsecularthought,andtherefore tomisstheopportunitytoaddressthequestionofdecolonizationfromtheperspective ofostensiblyvastlydifferingideologicalpositions.”OnehopesthathistoriansofdecolonizationintheMiddleEastwillheedhercall“todenaturalizethedominantcategoriesanddystopicnarrativeofMiddleEasternsocialandculturalhistory.”
Inpointingtoa“missing”archive(fromtheAlgerianperspective),theretreating colonialstate’swillfuldestructionofarchivalmaterial,andthechallengesofwriting a“historywithoutdocuments,”Shepard,Elkins,andElShakrysignaloneofthe moresignificantissuesofthearchivesofdecolonization:destructionand/orremoval, andthebroaderissueoferasure.SarahStein’s“BlackHoles,DarkMatter,and BuriedTroves:DecolonizationandtheMulti-SitedArchivesofAlgerianJewishHistory”providesanoveltwistonthisissue.Ratherthanpointingtothedestruction ofanarchiveinthecontextofdecolonization,sheexaminesthecuriouscaseofthe creationofanarchive(s).Stein’sanalysisofthecreationofdocumentsandarchives abouttheMzabiJewsofsouthernAlgeriaatthemomentofFrenchretreatfromthe countryaddressesthreeaspectsofthehistoryofdecolonization:first,thatitisrarely anegotiationbetweencolonizerandcolonizedalone,butinvolvesavarietyofinternationalparties,involvedinbroadergeopoliticalnegotiations(inthiscaseAlgeria,France,andIsrael,mostsignificantly);second,Jews’experienceofdecolonization;andthird,therelationshipbetweenarchivesanddecolonization.She relatesafascinatingtaleofthecreationofaregisteroftheMzabiJewsofsouthern AlgeriaatthebehestoftheFrenchstateinordertofacilitateFrenchcitizenshipfor them,thecreationofa geniza (repository)insouthernAlgeriainwhichcommunity papersandmanuscriptswereburiedbydepartingMzabiJews,andthecreationof adifferentregister(whichisnowunavailable)ofthiscommunitybyIsraeliofficials, whowerekeentoseeitemigratetoIsraelandnotFrance.Intracingthestoryof thesearchives(includingtheirdisappearance),Steinillustratesthatthearchives fromwhichthehistoryofsouthernAlgerianJewrycanbewrittenaremulti-sited,to befound(ornotfound)inFrance,Algeria,andIsrael.Thisarchivaldispersal—a “struggleoverdocumentsoftheJewishpast,”assheputsit—reflectstheconflicting agendasofthemultiplepartieswhoeachhadastakeinthefateoftheMzabiJews. Whenthesearchivestoriesaretraced,amorecomplexhistoryofthisJewishcommunityisrecovered,asisitsplaceinbroadernarrativesofdecolonization.
H.ReubenNeptune’s“TheIronyofUn-AmericanHistoriography:DanielJ. BoorstinandtheRediscoveryofaU.S.ArchiveofDecolonization”mayinitially appeartobeatsomeremovefromtheothercontributionstotheroundtable,since itisnotconcernedwithtwentieth-centurydecolonization.ButNeptune’sconcerns areverymuchofapiecewiththoseoftheothercontributorsinpushingforacareful considerationofwhatconstitutesthearchivesofdecolonizationandhowthisimpacts thewritingofhistory.Neptune’sinterventionishisinsistencethattheendofcolonial ruleintheUnitedStatesbeconsideredalongsidetwentieth-centurydecolonization.
Indeed,hearguesthatwhentheterm“decolonization”enteredacademicandpoliticalcurrencyinthe1930s,“itwasusedtoreferexplicitlyandprincipallytothe NorthAmericanrepublic.”TheUnitedStatesdroppedoutofdiscussionsofdecolonization,heargues,onlywiththeadventoftheColdWar,whenU.S.historians feltthattheUnitedStates’FirstWorldstandingwasincompatiblewiththeThird WorldexperienceofthenewlydecolonizednationsofAfricaandAsia.
ArguingthattheabsenceoftheUnitedStates’inclusionindiscussionsofdecolonizationisanartifactoftheColdWar,Neptunethenpresentsarereadingofmid-century “consensus”scholarship,suggestingthatitbeunderstoodasanarchiveofdecolonization.RejectingthenormativehistoriographicalinterpretationthattheworkofDaniel J.Boorstinwas“themostegregioussourceofthepatheticallypatrioticconsensustrend thatsupposedlysweptthefieldofhistory-writinginthedecadeandahalfafterWorld WarII,”hepresentsitas“aNorthAmericanistvariationonpostcolonialstudies,an approachconcernedwiththehistoricallyEurocentriclimitsofnationalism’spromiseto decolonizeinformerEuropeandependencies.”InreframingBoorstin’sscholarship,and thatofthe“consensus”historiansmoregenerally,asanarchiveofdecolonization,Neptunemakesanimportanthistoriographicalandpoliticalpointaboutwhatisatstakein keepingtheUnitedStates’historicalexperienceofdecolonizationdistinctfromthe twentieth-centuryexperienceof“ThirdWorld”nations:itisaculturalpoliticsofpower, representation,andexceptionalism.
Asmybriefintroductiontotheseessayssuggests,eachonepresentscogentargumentsgroundedinthespecifichistoriographiesoftheirlocal/national/regional fields.Readserially,theyprovidenewperspectivesonBritish,Algerian,French, Kenyan,MiddleEastern,Jewish,andU.S.historyandhistoriography.Considered synthetically,however,theroundtablepresentsacompellingsetofconsiderations aboutdecolonization.Mostfundamentally,itdestabilizesanynotionthatthearchivesofdecolonizationareself-evident.Inthecaseofthosearchivestraditionally takentobethesitesfromwhichthehistoryofdecolonizationiswritten(bothimperialandnational),theroundtablepushesforacarefulconsiderationofthematerialpracticesandhistoriesthatproducedthosearchivesintheirpresentformand theideologicalstructuresthatgovernboththeirorganizationandourreadingof them.Inalmosteverycase,theauthorsurgeustolookfornewarchivesthatcantell differenthistoriesofdecolonization,andtoreadoldarchiveswithfreshapproaches. Overall,theperspectivepresentedinthisroundtableisofdecolonizationasaprocess,inwhichthetransferofpowerwasbutonemoment.Italsosuggeststhatasa process,decolonizationisverymuchstillongoing.Indeed,onemightarguethatthe historian’staskinexcavatingthehistoriesofdecolonizationdoesnotstandoutside theprocess,butratherispartofanongoingstruggletodecolonize.
FarinaMir isAssociateProfessorofSouthAsianHistoryattheUniversityof Michigan.Sheistheauthorof TheSocialSpaceofLanguage:VernacularCulture inBritishColonialPunjab (UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2010)andco-editor, withAnshuMalhotra,of PunjabReconsidered:History,Culture,Practice (Oxford UniversityPress,2012).SheiscurrentlyworkingonaprojectonMuslimethics incolonialIndia.
Copyright American Historical Review the property Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not copied emailed multiple sites posted a listserv without the copyright express written permission. However, users may print, download, email articles for individual