{"title":"1980-2004年,狗岛上的记忆、社区和帝国的终结","authors":"Finn Gleeson","doi":"10.1093/hisres/htac016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n How might we best understand the place of imperial memory in contemporary British history? Recent scholarship has tended to characterize this through one of two binary categories, pointing to either imperial ‘amnesia’ or imperial ‘nostalgia’. This article contends that sustained and detailed case studies can offer us a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the production of memory. It uses the example of the Island History Trust, established to help local residents of London’s Docklands protest and later adjust to the losses brought about by deindustrialization, outward migration and financialized redevelopment overseen by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government. Within this narrative of social and economic displacement, however, was hidden another story: residents’ lament for the empowerment and enrichment that they had in earlier life derived from their proximity to the imperial port. The Trust’s left-wing practitioners had a complex relationship with the foundational place of empire in local identity; while they perceived it as being connected to an ‘endemic’ racism among residents, they also knew it signified great pride and dignity for many. This article traces the Trust’s shifting representations of empire over time. They celebrated the imperial port when it signified residents’ enrichment, criticized it when addressing the far-right British National Party’s popularity and obscured its connection to racism when mourning the disappearing community for posterity. The article argues that case studies like this can help begin the vital work of moving past simplistic and binary analyses of imperial ‘amnesia’ or ‘nostalgia’, and towards a history of imperial memory that appreciates its fluidity, messiness and political contingency. This, it argues, is vital if we are to effectively understand the politics of imperial memory in the present.","PeriodicalId":13059,"journal":{"name":"Historical Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Memory, community and the end of empire on the Isle of Dogs, 1980–2004\",\"authors\":\"Finn Gleeson\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/hisres/htac016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n How might we best understand the place of imperial memory in contemporary British history? Recent scholarship has tended to characterize this through one of two binary categories, pointing to either imperial ‘amnesia’ or imperial ‘nostalgia’. This article contends that sustained and detailed case studies can offer us a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the production of memory. It uses the example of the Island History Trust, established to help local residents of London’s Docklands protest and later adjust to the losses brought about by deindustrialization, outward migration and financialized redevelopment overseen by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government. Within this narrative of social and economic displacement, however, was hidden another story: residents’ lament for the empowerment and enrichment that they had in earlier life derived from their proximity to the imperial port. The Trust’s left-wing practitioners had a complex relationship with the foundational place of empire in local identity; while they perceived it as being connected to an ‘endemic’ racism among residents, they also knew it signified great pride and dignity for many. This article traces the Trust’s shifting representations of empire over time. They celebrated the imperial port when it signified residents’ enrichment, criticized it when addressing the far-right British National Party’s popularity and obscured its connection to racism when mourning the disappearing community for posterity. The article argues that case studies like this can help begin the vital work of moving past simplistic and binary analyses of imperial ‘amnesia’ or ‘nostalgia’, and towards a history of imperial memory that appreciates its fluidity, messiness and political contingency. This, it argues, is vital if we are to effectively understand the politics of imperial memory in the present.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13059,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Historical Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Historical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1090\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/hisres/htac016\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1090","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hisres/htac016","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
我们怎样才能最好地理解帝国记忆在当代英国历史中的地位?最近的学术研究倾向于通过两种二元分类之一来描述这一点,指出要么是帝国的“健忘症”,要么是帝国的“怀旧”。这篇文章认为,持续和详细的案例研究可以为我们提供一个更复杂和细致入微的记忆产生的理解。它以岛屿历史信托基金(Island History Trust)为例,该基金的成立是为了帮助伦敦码头区(Docklands)的当地居民进行抗议,后来又适应了玛格丽特•撒切尔(Margaret Thatcher)保守党政府监管下的去工业化、向外移民和金融化再开发带来的损失。然而,在这种社会和经济流离失所的叙述中,隐藏着另一个故事:居民们对早年生活中因靠近帝国港口而获得的权力和财富的哀叹。信托基金的左翼实践者与帝国在地方认同中的基础地位有着复杂的关系;虽然他们认为这与当地居民的“地方性”种族主义有关,但他们也知道,这对许多人来说意味着极大的骄傲和尊严。本文追溯了托拉斯随着时间的推移而不断变化的帝国表现形式。当帝国港口象征着居民的富裕时,他们庆祝;当极右翼的英国民族党(British National Party)受欢迎时,他们批评;当为子孙后代哀悼这个正在消失的社区时,他们模糊了它与种族主义的联系。这篇文章认为,像这样的案例研究可以帮助开始一项至关重要的工作,即摆脱对帝国“健忘症”或“怀旧”的简单和二元分析,转向对帝国记忆的历史,欣赏其流动性、杂乱性和政治偶然性。它认为,如果我们要有效地理解当今帝国记忆的政治,这一点至关重要。
Memory, community and the end of empire on the Isle of Dogs, 1980–2004
How might we best understand the place of imperial memory in contemporary British history? Recent scholarship has tended to characterize this through one of two binary categories, pointing to either imperial ‘amnesia’ or imperial ‘nostalgia’. This article contends that sustained and detailed case studies can offer us a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the production of memory. It uses the example of the Island History Trust, established to help local residents of London’s Docklands protest and later adjust to the losses brought about by deindustrialization, outward migration and financialized redevelopment overseen by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government. Within this narrative of social and economic displacement, however, was hidden another story: residents’ lament for the empowerment and enrichment that they had in earlier life derived from their proximity to the imperial port. The Trust’s left-wing practitioners had a complex relationship with the foundational place of empire in local identity; while they perceived it as being connected to an ‘endemic’ racism among residents, they also knew it signified great pride and dignity for many. This article traces the Trust’s shifting representations of empire over time. They celebrated the imperial port when it signified residents’ enrichment, criticized it when addressing the far-right British National Party’s popularity and obscured its connection to racism when mourning the disappearing community for posterity. The article argues that case studies like this can help begin the vital work of moving past simplistic and binary analyses of imperial ‘amnesia’ or ‘nostalgia’, and towards a history of imperial memory that appreciates its fluidity, messiness and political contingency. This, it argues, is vital if we are to effectively understand the politics of imperial memory in the present.
期刊介绍:
Since 1923, Historical Research has been a leading mainstream British historical journal. Its articles cover a wide geographical and temporal span: from the early middle ages to the twentieth century. It encourages the submission of articles from a broad variety of approaches, including social, political, urban, intellectual and cultural history.