Kyle Donahue

 

The readings of Durba Ghosh and Jennifer S. Milligan both show the great importance of archives in how a historian produces their work. Mulligan and Ghosh each examined what archives prove to be essential in exploring the history of a country. The main focus of the readings reflects on the importance archives and the national narrative of a country.

 

Milligan refers constantly to how archives reinforce the foundation of a nation. The argument proves this by using official state documents to show that France’s archives have a huge effect on the legitimacy of a country. I somewhat agree with the theory of these documents the archives provide delivering credence to a nations narrative. But where I disagree is that the archives support can’t be the foundation of a national narrative alone but only supporting details.

 

Ghosh’s reading brings credence to how archives can provide different types of archives and shows two distinct opposites of archives being used. From Great Britain using it to show support to interracial marriage by having tons of documents support the idea to India showing a clear opposition and not using archives at all. This is why I do not like using archives as a backbone of national narratives because documents are helpful but not as powerful as other methods.

 

 

Again I would say the archives here could not solely contribute to a building of a nation but contribute. Lets use Dickinson as an example, our archives help support the history that the community as created by providing documents that show the culture. But they only support because without the culture already being built I do not believe archives could create a culture by itself.