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.

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.

Both the Ghosh and Milligan readings this week present interesting images of archives as they relate to the nations whose history they are archiving. Many scholars find a strong tie between archives and the foundation of nations. This is because archives hold the documents and information that reflect essentially what a nation is about and also how the government of that nation has been functioning.

Milligan, in discussing the French Archives nationales, describes a system where the contents and actions of the archives is representative of the ideals of the state. If the Archives remove and destroy a document to protect an individual, they (and by extension, the government) are putting private interests above the public interest. If a government wishes to be perceived as benefitting the nation as a whole, the way documents are handled in the national archives should reflect this. In this way, the behavior of the archives themselves is central to the creation of nations.

In Ghosh’s essay, it becomes apparent through the both the differing content of archives in Britain and India and the reactions of people in the archives in both nations, that archives are key in shaping and maintaining a particular national identity. The documents in the Calcutta archives that represent an unsavory topic for India are poorly sorted and not often referenced, while archivists in Britain were keen to suggest various organized references that could help find information on that same topic. This suggests that what can be found easily in a nation’s archives becomes the nation’s history.

While I don’t believe the archives at Dickinson could not be said to be particularly influential in either of these ways to the creation of a nation (that nation being the United States), I do feel that the archives are central to how, in a smaller sense, the college community was built. The information in these archives relates to the founding and history of the college, and there is no doubt that what is included and what is easily accessible has shaped the image of Dickinson and its surrounding community. The Dickinson archives function similarly to national archives, but on a smaller scale.

The readings by both Ghosh and Milligan display the important role played by archivists in determining what information is considered valuable and useful to scholars and researchers. Additionally, the information deemed important by archivists is often influenced by a nationalist mentality, whether or not the archivist is aware of their bias. Ghosh’s experience with regards to her research on interracial marriages between the British and native Indians is a key example of the nationalist mindset. Her research with met with skepticism and blatant disrespect in the archives in India, as there was widespread denial that native Hindu women were involved in interracial relationships, and it was something “‘Muslim women did’” (Ghosh 29). On the other hand, however, the archivists in Britain took great interest in the topic, and felt that a multi-racial identity was to be embraced. The British view was, however, very nationalist, and promoted a false sense of harmony and interracial respect, as opposed to the very real tensions and violence that went hand in hand with colonial conquest. nationalism is created in order to foster support and unity amongst people who are governed by the same body. Nationalism, which unites the peoples of a country, is often created by a well-known national narrative. The United States, for instance, teaches an American history curriculum from kindergarten through high school, and every child grows up hearing the story of Paul Revere’s midnight right. While this common tale is not the epitome of historical accuracy, it creates a legend of American preparedness and resistance to the British. The legacy of the Revolutionary War helps define our collective history, creating strong senses of nationalism. The information given to the public determines how individuals view a collective past, and archives play a central role in the information that is available to contest or create a national narrative. Milligan’s piece emphasized the role archives play in the role of history-making in a different context. Rather than focus on what the archivists deemed important information, Milligan recounted how the establishment of the Archives nationales literally fostered an atmosphere that allowed scholars, historians, ands the public to create a French history. While Dickinson’s archives are not nearly as expansive as the ones discussed in the readings, our college has a long-standing history, and our location near Philadelphia certainly influences the documents the archives were able to obtain. Additionally, Dickinson is the first school “technically” chartered in the United States of America, which gives us an interesting time frame to begin collecting historical documents. While our archives do not have the sphere of influence to the same breadth as the Archives nationales, the archives at Dickinson certainly contain valuable information available to those who wish to utilize the resource. Our archives may not be the base of American history textbooks, but they do create a community of students who become familiar with the process of archival research. We do not create a nation with our Dickinson archives, but we can help cultivate and train the historians who will craft the newest interpretations of history.

By Madeline Kauffman

The readings of Durba Ghosh and Jennifer S. Milligan reflect the great importance of archives, both to historians and to the nations in which they are housed. Each author presents such importance in different lights and ultimately comment on how archives are crucial to the creation of nations.

In Ghosh’s “National Narratives and the Politics of Miscegenation: Britain and India” the author insists that archives contribute to the creation of national narratives and thus contribute to the creation of the nation. The availability of certain sources and documents within an archive depicts what the government and archivists deem as important to the nation and its people. Such power and influence shapes the way in which a nation is perceived, both by the citizens who live there, as well as scholars, such as Ghosh. In the article, Ghosh tells her own “archive story,” focusing on the time she spent in Britain and India studying interracial marriage during the period of British colonialism in India. From her experience in Britain, it was clear that such topic was embraced by the nation, portrayed by the willingness of the archivists to help and the ample amounts of sources within the archives. Her time in India, however, revealed a distinct distaste for such topic and a desire to deny its presence from the national narrative. Sources were constantly unavailable or kept from the public, and people were unwilling to help.

Milligan, through her piece, “What is an Archive,” argues that archives represent the importance of the close relationship between the nation and the archive, and thus portray the multiple power regimes that shaped the nation as a whole. As she explains through her example with the Archives nationales, archives are reinforced and reformulated with each new power regime. This in turn is represented through the accumulation of official documents, and ultimately gives recognition to the state.

The Dickinson archives hold numerous amounts of documents that are in relation to the college, as well as to the greater community in which the college resides. To question whether this archive could be connected to the building of a nation is indeed very interesting. If it was to build a nation that incorporated just the greater Carlisle community, then yes, I would say that it would be possible. The documents within said archive represent what we as a community hold to be valuable and important, and in that sense, it determines our “national” narrative.

Hello everyone,

In the readings this week, we have two instances that connect nationalism with archives.  Why do you think some scholars understand the archives as so central to the creation of a nation?  Do you think that the archives here at Dickinson could also be connected to the building of a nation?  Why or why not?  How?

Reflections by Caly McCarthy

This week’s readings both spoke about the importance of archives in the work of a historian, especially as they pertain to national narratives. Jennifer S. Mulligan and Durba Ghosh each examined the significance of the archives (and perhaps more importantly, the archivist), but they focused on different aspects of this vital institution.

Mulligan identifies the Archives nationales as central to the creation on France as a nation. In a rather straightforward sense, this is true because the Archives houses official documents that record proceedings of the state. These documents (transcripts of hearings, diplomatic correspondence, drafts of bills, etc.) give legitimacy to the state. Depending on the public’s access to the Archives, they also indicate the relationship between the governed and the governing.

In a more figurative sense, Ghosh argues that archives are of central importance to creating a nation by contributing to the prevailing national narrative. Ghosh articulately observes that archivists have a great deal of power over the legacy of government involvements by granting or denying access to certain documents, and by organizing sources in a particular way that encourage some connections and discourage others. She offers the example of Britain and India, and the strikingly different ways in which the two nations portray interracial marriage during British colonialism in India (pride for the British, disdain and distance for the Indians).

The Dickinson College Archives contains documents largely pertaining to the College, the lives of its founding members, and events in the greater-Carlisle area. Granted that I have had very limited interaction with the College’s Archives, I do not think that they are particularly related to the building of a nation, as far as state papers/national legitimacy goes. That being said, the College was founded by Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, who believed that the nation could only succeed if its constituents were properly educated and involved in the democratic process. Perhaps this could constitute as relevant to the founding of the nation? More likely the contents of the Dickinson College Archives contribute to a small facet of a larger national narrative. Interestingly, the website of the Dickinson College Archives offers that one of its responsibilities is “maintaining the institutional memory of the entire Dickinson community.” This sounds strikingly like keeping guard over the stories that get told about the identity of a nation.