Colonial archives were sites of expectation and conjured futures, not mere records.
Related
- Colonial archives preserve fantasies of what might yet be, not just events. (similarity 0.97)
- Colonial archives functioned as active technologies of rule, not passive records (similarity 0.94)
- Historians should read along the colonial grain before reading against it (similarity 0.89)
- Colonial archives actively shape what counts as legitimate knowledge (similarity 0.87)
- Archives are cultural spaces, not just document collections, shaped by colonial relations (similarity 0.85)
- Current colonial scholars read archives as places and cultural spaces (similarity 0.85)
- Official colonial correspondence was saturated by speculative, contested street-level voices. (similarity 0.85)
- Colonial archives actively produce categories rather than merely record them (similarity 0.85)
- Colonial archives primarily record epistemic uncertainty, not settled accounts of events. (similarity 0.85)
- Colonial archives extend beyond official collections into a wider force field of document production (similarity 0.85)
- Colonial rulers sincerely believed their own religious and self-interested ideology (similarity 0.84)
- Colonial archives hold affective hopes, fears, and trained attentions, not just records. (similarity 0.84)
- Colonial archives should be treated as ethnographic sites not extraction sources (similarity 0.84)
- Archival documents act as generative substances that shape the colonial apparatus. (similarity 0.84)
- Colonial archives record administrators’ uncertainty about matching rules to reality (similarity 0.83)