Historians should read along the colonial grain before reading against it

Related

• Colonial archives were sites of expectation and conjured futures, not mere records. (similarity 0.89)
• Colonial archives preserve fantasies of what might yet be, not just events. (similarity 0.88)
• Official colonial correspondence was saturated by speculative, contested street-level voices. (similarity 0.87)
• Colonial sentiment discipline targeted colonizers themselves, not only the colonized (similarity 0.87)
• Colonial archives functioned as active technologies of rule, not passive records (similarity 0.85)
• Colonial rulers sincerely believed their own religious and self-interested ideology (similarity 0.84)
• The dialectic is the marrow of historiography and political science, not formal logic. (similarity 0.84)
• Colonial states reduced and winnowed knowledge rather than always accumulating it (similarity 0.83)
• Colonial officials distrusted the black police force and armed white militias instead (similarity 0.83)
• Archival documents act as generative substances that shape the colonial apparatus. (similarity 0.83)
• Colonial sources are produced not found, so fact and fiction blur (similarity 0.83)
• Colonial administrators promoted racial division to secure white loyalty and preserve slavery (similarity 0.83)
• Historians cannot exit colonial history the way Lévi-Strauss recommended. (similarity 0.82)
• Historical change forces theorists to invent new, more concrete concepts (similarity 0.82)
• Interpersonal colonial hostility mirrors opposing stances on European pretension (similarity 0.82)