The Problems, Merits, and Complexities of Postcolonial History and ‘History from Below’

The first official construction of the idea of ‘history from below’ came from Edward P. Thompson in his 1966 article of the same name. His profound idea was formed on the basis that history cannot be studied in full without the added dimension of individual experience and that the limitation of the traditional and mainstream study of history to merely the events and circumstances surrounding elite governing bodies not only excluded these individual experiences, but actively erased the stories they told and the groups of people that had them. Postcolonialism stresses the same ideals, but with a focus on the individuals who lived specifically under an oppressive colonial rule. Since the formal introduction of Thompson’s idea of a new level of history, many historians have found themselves either inspired by or displeased with the concept of history from below. This essay will analyze the merits of this notion, such as the inclusion of marginalized groups into mainstream history and how this amplifies what we as historians already know about the past, and will also analyze the complications and problems associated with this design, such as a shortage of data before a certain time period and the unreliability associated with personal memory and bias. 

The stark contrast of the differences in thought regarding the study and writing of history before and after this so-called ‘invention’ of history from below is best illustrated in the United States. Until the ideas of Thompson came to light, there were two primary schools of thought within the society of historical scholars: progressive historians and consensus historians. While both of these bodies only examined the population of the United States as a whole, progressive historians like Charles Beard saw the country as a divided nation with a few select powers dictating its government and direction. Beard believed these powers at play would eventually be curbed to reveal a must more just society. On the contrary, consensus historians believed that the United States began as a just society and stressed the uniqueness of the nation in comparison to European countries with feudal backgrounds. Consensus historians even went so far as to say that, unlike its European counterparts, the United States never experienced any major conflict aside from its Civil War which, according to this thought, could have been prevented had anti-slavery abolitionists not pushed the matter. 

After the introduction of history from below, a new league of historians was introduced to the society of American scholars: radical historians. Unlike its two earlier counterparts, radical historians challenged this unified view of the United States and sought to rediscover and write a history that recognized all sides of American society regardless of race, gender, or religion. Michael Oakeshott accurately summarized the difference by categorizing the writing of history into two methods: historical past and practical past. Previously, historians focused solely on a historical past, on the series of factual, easily provable events conducted by governing bodies that shaped the political planet as we know it. In contrast, Oakeshott described a practical past as the experiences of long gone everyday people that shaped our current identities as we know them.

Focusing on a practical past comes with many merits, including, but not limited to, giving a voice to those who either lost it or did not know they had one, as well as amplifying the modern history curriculum used in schools and research today. The idea had immediate appeal to some historians as it granted them the ability to expand their knowledge of their chosen subject area and open new areas of research by focusing on the lives and experiences of individuals rather than the general attitude of the masses. A significant contribution to the purpose of focusing on a practical history are in the letters written by British Private Wheeler to his wife after the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. Most historians are already well aware of what took place during and the outcome of this battle, but Wheeler’s letters provided a completely new perspective from which to study the event. He describes the weather, the piles of bodies of his comrades, and most importantly the experience of fighting that day, things a great commander would not be able to provide firsthand. Part of the appeal of history from below is that it seeks to change the narrative that the individual voices and history of the masses, of everyday people, is inaccessible or unimportant. A prime example of the type of contribution this can make to what modern day historians view as the past can be seen in Zora Neale Hurston’s 1927 interview of a man named Cudjo Lewis, the last known survivor of the transatlantic journey from Africa to the Americas to be sold as property. Lewis’s account of being attacked, kidnapped, and sold to white men across the ocean nearly fifty years after the slave trade was outlawed in the United States is the only one of its kind, and gives a voice to a history many Americans have tried to forget. The slave trade and the treatment of its victims has greatly shaped the identities of many Black Americans and the identity of the United States as a whole. To ignore these experiences, including and especially Lewis’s, would be to ignore a massively important aspect of American history in favor of decoding American identity based on the political accounts of the perpetrators. 

Studying history from below and creating a view of a practical past does not, however, come without its share of complexities. The goal of this type of study is to add experience to a previously established timeline of events, but must come with the acceptance that we as researchers will never fully understand the emotions felt because we as researchers did not directly experience them. This can make the study complex as it is admitting there is even the slightest bit of guesswork involved. By studying the diaries, memoirs, interviews, and so on of people who came before us, we as researchers must determine the emotions and overall impact of an event on an individual by relating them to our own experiences and reactions, and sometimes that just can not be done. In the example of Cudjo Lewis, one cannot completely understand his emotional perspective because researchers did not directly experience what he did and as such are left to an estimated guess regardless of how fully he told his story. 

Another complexity arises when the possible lack of a full story is considered. The goal of any historian has long been to discover exactly what happened long ago, which can be difficult when studying the individual rather than the masses. Memory, personal bias, and even national identity can be hindrance. In the cases of East and West Germany after World War II, oral historians have taken note of the different tones used by veterans in both countries to describe the same period of events. A Soviet controlled East Germany produced veterans that were more willing to describe the crimes committed during the war by German soldiers, but largely ignored any suffering on the part of Jewish people. West German veterans were more likely to speak of the suffering the Germans themselves endured, but largely ignored the war crimes they had been exonerated of and what had been done to millions of Jews. While this does paint an incomplete picture of the exact events of World War II, even the missing aspects can provide an insight into the individual experience felt by each person interviewed. This lack of a complete story is not limited, however, to German veterans; it is perhaps the one thing that every person has in common. It is not an understatement to say that every person knows some amount of history. What each person remembers about history is usually what is most useful to themselves and their lives, and are more than capable of altering facts, no matter how well established they are, through their own interpretations and preferences. Even the cultural traditions that one follows on a regular basis can find basis in actively selected versions of the past. The full impact of this lack of or withholding of information on and by an individual can be difficult to examine, especially as researchers are resolved to make nothing more than more educated guesses. 

Although there are several complexities that arise with studying history from below, some historians argue that the study is altogether problematic in itself by seeking to accomplish what is essentially the unaccomplishable. The fact that so many questions uncovered by studying the history of the average person must be solved with nothing more factual than a hypothesis only aids in labelling this type of study incomplete or irrelevant to a factual history timeline. However, aside from the issue of incompleteness, the study of history from below prompts the following: Whose history is to be deemed ‘below’? This question is difficult to answer, and perhaps there is no exact answer. The desire to use the study of history from below to aid in the study of a pre-established timeline of events threatens to limit the study of the individual to the study of individuals involved in large political occurrences or upheavals. Are these events involving the masses to be considered what is ‘below’? The study of postcolonial history and history from below is only further limited by circumstance rather than design, as source materials regarding the types of experiences this research hopes to study is extremely limited from any time earlier than the late eighteenth century. The primary problem with this area of study, in addition to the complexities that arise from such, is the problem of limitation. Researchers are limited to the modern era, potentially limited to the experiences of those involved in great turmoil that would be addressed in the mainstream study of history anyway, and limited to the more than probable bias each individual holds. 

To conclude, the study of the history of the average person is a relatively new subject area and does not come without its own set of complexities and problems. However, the merits of conducting such studies can not and should not go unnoticed. Even with the small holes in historical accuracy found by a facts based researcher, the stories and experiences of individuals previously unheard only add to what we know and understand about our ancestors before us and about people in general. In addition to providing a new dimension to the history we already know, this type of comparative study aids in the removal of narrow minded thinking from our society. We as researchers will never be able to paint an entirely complete portrait of the past, but by actively ignoring the nearly forgotten stories of a man who lived as a slave or a little girl who lived as a Jew in hiding, we are actively selecting to leave holes in that image because the history of the masses is equally a part of our history as the history of the elite.

Bibliography

Black, J., Studying History, (Basingstoke, 2007)

Burke, P., New Perspectives on Historical Writing, (Cambridge, 1991)

Hurston, Z. N., Barracoon: the story of the last “Black Cargo”, (Amistad, 2018)

Iggers, G.,  A Global History of Modern Historiography, (London, 2017)

Munslow, A., The Routledge Companion to Historical Studies, (London, 2006)

Rosaldo, R.,  ‘Celebrating Thompson’s Heroes: Social Analysis in History and Anthropology’, in H. J. Kaye & K. McClelland (eds), E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives (Cambridge, 1990)