In their selection and preservation of certain documents over others, archivists act as the gatekeepers of history. As these individuals determine which records are worth keeping, they must judge what will be of historical value. While certain standards apply, archivist’s judgments are still subject to bias. Because archivists are naturally more likely to collect and promote the documents that support their familiar and comfortable narratives, they foster the telling of a history that is shaped by nationalist principles. By limiting the histories that can be told in their regulation of source material, archivists produce and restrict the creation of national ideals and myths.

Ghosh illustrates the impact of these archivist biases as she recounts the dissimilar attitudes of British and Indian archivists. In the Indian archives, Ghosh’s exploration of interracial relationship between Hindu and British colonists provoked condescension and disgust. Her line of research challenged a cultural identity of purity among Hindu women and was consequently poorly received by the archivists, who directed her towards scant collections of historical novels and unorganized records. In contrast, her research in the British archives prompted positive reactions from her English colleagues, who were happy to subscribe to a cultural narrative of familial harmony and multiculturalism during colonization, rather than oppression. Consequently, British archivists led Ghosh in a starkly different direction than their Indian peers. Ghosh’s experience in the archives reveals how the nationalist biases of archivists affects the quality and type of research materials available to historians, and thus shapes national historical narratives without necessarily producing formal history.

Milligan similarly emphasizes the importance of an archive to the national interest, explaining that the purpose and use of an archive reflects the social contract of democracy by giving access to knowledge to the public. Examining the history of the Archives Nationales in France, Milligan demonstrates how the institution has served as both an instrument of changing governments and also as a mirror of political ideals in flux. For example, the case of the duc de Praslin forced archivists to weigh ideals of the public good versus the rights of private interest. Their decision to preserve even controversial material like the court documents from this particular scandalous case set a precedent for the values system of the nation’s government. The weight of this decision shows the potential power of Archives even in the present day for shaping the nation and its cultural and political ideals.

While Ghosh and Milligan are writing about national archives, even a more locally based archive like the collections at Dickinson can help create a nation. By choosing which donations go through the process of being inventoried and preserved, by organizing certain items together as collections, and by displaying some portions of their vast materials in public, Archivists shape cultural narratives in their choices. The materials we find in our Archives therefore represent the vision of the Archivists for the nation, and for the more local community. For example, the Archives houses an extensive collection of documents and materials from the LGBT community in Central Pennsylvania. In their decision to dedicate their time to preserving these materials and granting them valuable shelf space in the stacks, they assert that the voices of these individuals are worth highlighting. The elevation of some voices over others therefore helps shape the ideals and narratives that form our country and community.