2.)        Strong ideals in the subject matter had Daniel Defoe and ancient philosophers arrested, but their outlets through literature live on through the centuries by ongoing study and surfacing of different interpretations. Historians should approach novels by trying to interpret the author’s message. In the article, James Joyce showcased how symbolism appeared in Robinson Crusoe as a tool to deliver a more profound message. The Imperialist Historiography drives historians to consider a new interpretation or connection to the past involving matters of British Imperialism.

            When it comes to novels as potential sources they could be useful to gather information on the ideas of the time. Not many novels can escape the influences of the time they are written in and this could be used ass context for a paper. Novels help illustrate the ideas and fears of the time such as a sci-fi book that was written in 2012 has a focus on rouge groups attacking a government might indicate that in 2012 people were worried about that. 

1. Literature and first-hand accounts of sailors, merchants, or other seafaring folk were the only sources of information about the new world and other distant British colonies for the vast majority of British citizens.  Undoubtedly, literature played a large role in educating the British about the rest of the world. I would not be surprised if some literature was made for the sole purpose of shaping the English’s views about their colonies. I can imagine a newspaper printing an article about how many miles of road was paved in India, and about how economic growth such as this was only possible because they are a British colony. 

2. Historians should compare as many details from a novel to details from other sources they have previously confirmed to be true. The more details that match, the more likely a source is genuine. Any details that are specific to one book or account should be noted, but not thought of as fact until there is another way to confirm the source. 

2.)   For a historian, novels serve as a miniature gateway into the ethos of the time they were written.  A fictionalization of a historical event would not work well if the intention was to get a completely accurate idea of how events played out and who the people were.  Understanding why any novel was made and the time in which it was created can give a picture into the past a historian may be trying to research.

2)     I think that Historian should understand that a writer will write about things they are familiar with or that things that they have experienced will influence their writing. A historian can gain insight about a period in time or events that happened in a certain time period by reading works from that time period. I believe therefore it is still important for historians to read famous works that may be fiction, because that work will have been influenced by the events that happened in that time period. 

Many novels are exciting tales about traveling across the sea or long trips through the desert to find whatever the protagonist is searching for.  During those journeys the characters come across a variety of different people and animals. This is when people start to wonder if there is truth in these stories.  

 The stories in literature bring curiosity to the readers mind and I believe this made some readers want to explore parts of the world. 

2.) I believe historians should tread lightly when using novels as a potential source.  I believe depending on the subject the information the historian is seeking about a person, place or thing within the novel should be compared to other sources to ensure the material is accurate.  Sometimes events or people can be exaggerated or taken out of context for the sake of the readers entertainment.  

The Victorian period is deeply influenced in the novels, Great Expectations and Jane Eyre. Charles Dickens and Charlotte Bronte made a strong connection with many readers in that time period and others today. The Victorian period had many themes from this era that they used, such as socialism, imperialism, a strong British empire, and much more. For example, in Jane Eyre, a character in the book named Bertha was locked up in Mr. Rochester house (her husband and owner of the mansion that they live in) because she was crazy. However, one can uncover and look deep into a deeper meaning of it. Bertha was of a mixed race and back then not all races were accepted. Charlotte Bronte used imperialism in this point in the book, which during the Victorian period the British empire wanted to lock up cultures that was/did not fit theirs. 

In reading Robinson Crusoe and Kim I noticed something odd about the way the others and characters described characters of other races. In Robinson Crusoe Crusoe calls Friday, an indigenous man, one of the best men he has ever met. He trusts Friday with his life and has very high esteem for him.  However, he insists that Friday call “Master” and is intent on turning him into a good English Christian. There is an obvious contradiction between Crusoe’s opinions of Friday’s character and his treatment of him. I’m assuming that this bizarre cognitive dissonance may be emblematic of the attitudes of white Englishmen of the time. Whenever they got to know a nonwhite person they can’t help but acknowledge their personhood and enjoy getting to know them as individuals. Despite this, they persisted in simultaneously believing that all races were inferior to them, even though they saw evidence to the contrary in their own day to day lives. 

                In Kim, Kim, the orphan son of an Irish couple is raised by an Indian prostitute and grows up around the Hindu, Moslem, and Sikh cultures. Kim personally prefers interacting with Indians to Europeans, yet the book still portrays the British Empire as righteous in its quest to conquer, colonize, and “civilize” as many countries as it can.   Again, the contradiction in the way the book portrays various cultures seems to me to be a symptom of how blindly the English believed in the colonial narrative put forth by their government. In a way they were almost brainwashed into a baseless belief in racial superiority. Robinson Crusoe and Kim are both evidence of this. 

The second artifact I found meaningful was the Glass Fountain by Messrs Osler, of Birmingham. This artifact was described to be the most striking at the exhibit. I found this one to be meaningful because it portrays the confidence of the Britains.  At the time they were the most advanced civilization and felt they were the peak of humanity, but they also wanted everyone else to know that as well. The regal design of this fountain is why I believe it is meaning because it was made to attract people’s attention.

Another Item I found in volume 3, page 626, item number 292 were gold, silver and stone pens, pencils, tooth pick, and other items made for the king and queen. These items included gold mounts, crowns, jewels and stones. I find it interesting that an inventor would find need to invent things specifically for the king and queen. It seems these items were made to commemorate the King and Queen. 

I think many of the items displayed show that England was not only looking for and trying to make the best inventions in order to make life better or easier, but perhaps they were also looking to display things of great value and quality even if they weren’t really practical or a necessity. 

2. With Levine’s chapter on gender and sexuality in mind, a path has opened to understanding the underlying concepts of the systems.  We have seen cases where the non-Anglo peoples under rule of the British were regarded as children who needed their new parents to set them on “the right path”.  This can also be seen in the United States when Andrew Jackson considered himself “The Great White Father” to the Native Americans.  As was the ideal tradition within the culture, the concept of the “Great White Mothers” attempting to bring their “Native Children” into the new ways and out of “primitive” life became the base at which these projects stood upon.

              In our chapter on Gender and Sexuality we see that in many places the empire went they would push their own set of ideals on the people of the land that they colonized. In both text you can see where the local people once colonized were taught that they were an inferior race and that the mother England would teach them, like little children, the “right” way to be. Both texts also show that the indigenous people would be put into service of those that took over, sometimes in humiliating or demeaning jobs that their colonizers didn’t want. 

2)      I believe that the link shows that the colonizers believed that if children are separated from their mothers early, then they can be indoctrinated with British customs instead of being taught their natural cultural teachings. It shows that the British assumed that like in their culture, mothers were the ones that stayed home and taught the children. It also shows that the British perhaps felt that because the cultural practices of the Native Americans and aboriginals were different, the must be backward. 

In links to motherhood Jacobs relates to Philippa Levine’s chapter on gender and sexuality by honing in on the “women’s job” during this time of Empire. Women were expected to maintain the order of the Empire by having babies, promoting “cleanliness,” and exuding the embodiment of refinement and sophistication. Jacobs described in emotional triggering detail the cost of living up to Empire’s standard of cleanliness by covering many accounts of the indigenous children in the United States and Australia. Children were lured or stripped away from their mothers in schemes to fill future laborious jobs by indigenous population rather than the British. They were now concerned with birth rates, so they started promoting family life and a women’s purpose.  Children suffered extreme degrading changes in rehabilitation to Empire standards. The goal was to scrub away the children’s prior identity in hopes to secure their conformity.

After being exploited they were essentially left to fend for themselves. In an article I read the author discussed the state of Nigeria after decolonization in the 1940s. Within the article he states that of the 30 million inhabitants only 150 people were lawyers and 160 doctors of local origin. These decolonization efforts are in large part

responsible for a majority of the issues Africa

has today.  In present day, Africa is suffering from many political issues because of a lack of 

leadership. These political issues then stem to economic and social issues and the problems such as education and health care. This has created a snowball effect and turned Africa into the 

corrupted situation that it is today. It is very unfortunate to see the effects of decolonization from  the 50s and 60s be the cause of Africa’s problems for this long. These issues have been around for a while and there are even more but it leaves me to wonder if they will ever recover.

The decolonization of the British was a series of events between the 1950’s to the 1960’s that were bound to happen. This era could be seen as one where some good was coming to Africa, but that was not fully the case. The decolonization of the regions that were once colonies of the British Empire still needs improvement in this modern era. Although, many nations in British Africa became independent some still continue to hold the white racist values of the era. These nations may have separated themselves from the rule of the British Empire. However, they still continue to follow the principles left behind from the United Kingdom. Decolonization is a process that could take decades to fully complete; even after becoming an nation that is recognized as being independent, the process still continues. As mentioned by my classmate, a number of the colonies still have policies, education, and a government that was founded by the British Empire. When the Empire was forced to begin decolonization after the Suez Crisis, the British wanted it to occur under its own terms. The reason for the British to go this route was because they were fearful that the colonies turn 
toward a communist government that supported the Soviet Union.