||[Jan. 25th, 2007|06:59 pm]
Do Colonial Historians have more social responsibility than other historical researchers?
Should we always be working and researching with the ultimate aim of benefiting the groups that we study?
Or is Colonial history simply about uncovering facts and displaying them as objectively as possible so that people can make their own judgements? What if people use those facts and deductions to further their own cause (whether it be harmful or beneficial to the studied group)?
I'm rather on the fence about it all. Morality tells me that Colonial Historians are half anthropologiest, and as such always need to work with their subjects in mind. But on the other hand, always working to benefit the colonized rather restricts research. A lot of what historians deduct about colonization is pretty irrelevant to the people themselves, but tells us a lot about the Colonizers. Or maybe it's a useles, but still interesting and revealing.