https://www.videri.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=StevenGarcia 2026-04-04T02:35:28Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.24.1 https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Cartographic_Mexico&diff=3568 2018-02-19T19:30:23Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Cartographic Mexico: A History of State Fixations and Fugitive Landscapes<br /> | author = Raymond B. Craib<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = Nov. 2004<br /> | pages = 328<br /> | isbn = 082233416X<br /> | image = [[File:Cartographic Mexico.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> [http://history.cornell.edu/raymond-b-craib Raymond B. Craib]’s &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico: A History of State Fixations and Fugitive Landscapes&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; explores the spatial history of Mexico’s state-formation throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In defining ‘spatial history,’ Craib argues that the “history of the modern Mexican state is inextricably entwined with [space] it has not only occupied but actively produced” (2). Specifically, he defines this phenomenon as a series of “contested, dialectical, and social (not merely technical) processes by which explorers, surveyors, and cartographers attempted to define, codify, and naturalize space in cooperation and struggle with the people they encountered in the field” (2). In short, &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039; examines a familiar theme in Latin American history, that being the relationship between the burgeoning bureaucratic state and the local rural people, through the novel lens of spatial theory and map-making. Maps, at least in the national imaginary, help define the space a nation occupies concerning itself and its neighboring nation-states. They affirm the boundaries and reach of the government’s authority, justifying a nation’s material existence by delineating its beginning and end. However, Craib complicates this ideal spatial imaginary by introducing a dialectical relationship between state agents and local people on the ground. It is this interaction, between government intermediaries and villagers in the rural countryside, that serves as the primary theme and driving argument for &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039;.<br /> <br /> Over the course of nine chapters, each structured as independent essays organized chronologically from the 1820s to the 1930s, Craib presents the Mexican state’s goal in defining the nation’s boundaries akin to that of an existential dilemma. He defines this dilemma as the need to “demonstrate that [the] nation” is “something more than mere conjecture” (19). In contrast, the government’s quest for territoriality clashes with the realities of those physically living in these vast swathes of unmapped territory. Focusing closely on the region of Veracruz, Craib describes this dialectical back-and-forth between state and local as a competition between “measurement” and “memory,” “inscription” and “inheritance,” and “technical abstraction with social experience as arbiters of reality” (57). Throughout the book, the specific context of the state-local dialectic shifts from topic to topic, with each essay highlighting the introduction of new technologies or obstacles. For example, chapter one addresses the nascent Mexican state’s crisis of identity in the wake of independence in 1821, while chapters four and five follow the creation of the Comisión Geográfico-Exploradora and its ties to the goals of Porfirio Díaz&#039;s regime. Regardless of the period, Craib relies heavily on a Foucauldian-style ‘knowledge is power’ analysis of the state’s motives in acquiring geographical and statistical information. Furthermore, he draws inspiration from other similar academics in the fields of history, human geography, anthropology, and spatial theory, including James C. Scott, Edward Said, and Fernand Braudel. In contrast, most of Craib’s arguments for local peoples&#039; maneuvering through state apparatuses comes from primary sources on the period and authors such as Bernard Cohn and Deborah Poole, both historians of imperialism and imperial subjects. Furthermore, Craib’s excellent use of primary sources, from first-hand accounts to his use and interpretation of period maps, are at the forefront of his analysis in each chapter.<br /> <br /> On the note of source material, Craib grounds his reasoning for the use of spatial theory in historical analysis as necessary and productive. The choice to utilize maps in an examination of Mexican state-formation is not one made purely for the sake of academic fashion. He criticizes the uncritical use and disdain for spatial theory in the discipline, generalizing these detractors as seeing space only as a “static and neutral category, a pre-political object, and little more than a passive stage upon which historical subjects play assigned roles” (3). Instead, Craib argues that “space as a stage,” in this case the Mexican state’s fixation with territoriality, “has a history, one inextricably linked to the social abstraction of commodity exchange and the political abstraction of the modern, territorial state” (5). In this sense, he contributes to the historiography of geospatial analysis in history by introducing new voices from the fields of anthropology and human geography as vital in the field’s historical understanding of cartography and human interactions with the physical environment. Craib drills down on these interactions, identifying a dialectical relationship throughout much of Mexico’s modern history. Specifically, the topic of the ejido, or land administrated by the state for public agricultural use, comes up over and over in the sources as a site of contest between the state and the local. At the high point of this debate, as presented in the book’s epilogue, the Mexican government passed legislation in the 1990s that allow for public land to be privatized and sold to foreigners or individuals. In response, native locals, who related the ejido with the promise of nationalization from the Mexican Revolution, treated this like “the slaughter of one of the sacred cows of revolutionary iconography” (256). Craib here reinforces the political and social weight of space, arguing for the ejido’s changing political value and interpretations.<br /> <br /> However, &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039;’s key strength may also be its greatest weakness. Using maps involves a great deal of interpretive work and although there are numerous primary sources reinforcing Craib’s thesis on state desires for territoriality, there are also examples of ‘artistic’ interpretation that may be less credible. For example, chapter three is dedicated to the study of land plotting, divisions, and the use of foreign intellectuals in the state’s survey work. Craib describes one of the maps as a “compelling image of the land division as well as the mindset that promoted it,” stating that the “grid of property does not sit lightly over the land but appears almost to strangle it, forcing a fractured land into Platonic forms” (91). This argument is initially difficult to accept, as it focuses too much on a non-technical style of interpretive analysis. It is in later chapters that he develops this socio-cultural lens he outlines in his introduction, focusing less on the specifics of the physical maps and more on the symbolic work of state surveyors and the competition between local knowledge and the state imaginary. In this sense, Craib’s abstract analysis of maps seems less like a stylistic choice made for the sake of entertaining reading, although it falls through at times nevertheless, and more a key component in formulating the relationship between state and local interpretations of space.<br /> <br /> Craib’s work contributes a great deal not only to Latin American historiography on state-formation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but also helps legitimize the use of spatial theory and geography in history. Utilizing a wide variety of theories and methods and an extensive collection of primary sources, &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039; presents a new angle in readings of the nascent Mexican state. Instead of purely political or economic examinations behind Mexico’s shifts from republic to dictatorship, Craib’s argument presents a contest between a struggling nation in search of identity, native peoples struggling to retain their native customs, and a new appreciation for space and land as analytical lenses in defining the role of the state in everyday life.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Raymond B. Craib]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Latin American History]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Cartographic_Mexico&diff=3567 2018-02-19T19:29:57Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Cartographic Mexico: A History of State Fixations and Fugitive Landscapes<br /> | author = Raymond B. Craib<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = Nov. 2004<br /> | pages = 328<br /> | isbn = 082233416X<br /> | image = [[File:Cartographic Mexico.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> [http://history.cornell.edu/raymond-b-craib Raymond B. Craib]’s &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico: A History of State Fixations and Fugitive Landscapes&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; explores the spatial history of Mexico’s state-formation throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In defining ‘spatial history,’ Craib argues that the “history of the modern Mexican state is inextricably entwined with [space] it has not only occupied but actively produced” (2). Specifically, he defines this phenomenon as a series of “contested, dialectical, and social (not merely technical) processes by which explorers, surveyors, and cartographers attempted to define, codify, and naturalize space in cooperation and struggle with the people they encountered in the field” (2). In short, &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039; examines a familiar theme in Latin American history, that being the relationship between the burgeoning bureaucratic state and the local rural people, through the novel lens of spatial theory and map-making. Maps, at least in the national imaginary, help define the space a nation occupies concerning itself and its neighboring nation-states. They affirm the boundaries and reach of the government’s authority, justifying a nation’s material existence by delineating its beginning and end. However, Craib complicates this ideal spatial imaginary by introducing a dialectical relationship between state agents and local people on the ground. It is this interaction, between government intermediaries and villagers in the rural countryside, that serves as the primary theme and driving argument for &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039;.<br /> <br /> Over the course of nine chapters, each structured as independent essays organized chronologically from the 1820s to the 1930s, Craib presents the Mexican state’s goal in defining the nation’s boundaries akin to that of an existential dilemma. He defines this dilemma as the need to “demonstrate that [the] nation” is “something more than mere conjecture” (19). In contrast, the government’s quest for territoriality clashes with the realities of those physically living in these vast swathes of unmapped territory. Focusing closely on the region of Veracruz, Craib describes this dialectical back-and-forth between state and local as a competition between “measurement” and “memory,” “inscription” and “inheritance,” and “technical abstraction with social experience as arbiters of reality” (57). Throughout the book, the specific context of the state-local dialectic shifts from topic to topic, with each essay highlighting the introduction of new technologies or obstacles. For example, chapter one addresses the nascent Mexican state’s crisis of identity in the wake of independence in 1821, while chapters four and five follow the creation of the Comisión Geográfico-Exploradora and its ties to the goals of Porfirio Díaz&#039;s regime. Regardless of the period, Craib relies heavily on a Foucauldian-style ‘knowledge is power’ analysis of the state’s motives in acquiring geographical and statistical information. Furthermore, he draws inspiration from other similar academics in the fields of history, human geography, anthropology, and spatial theory, including James C. Scott, Edward Said, and Fernand Braudel. In contrast, most of Craib’s arguments for local peoples&#039; maneuvering through state apparatuses comes from primary sources on the period and authors such as Bernard Cohn and Deborah Poole, both historians of imperialism and imperial subjects. Furthermore, Craib’s excellent use of primary sources, from first-hand accounts to his use and interpretation of period maps, are at the forefront of his analysis in each chapter.<br /> <br /> On the note of source material, Craib grounds his reasoning for the use of spatial theory in historical analysis as necessary and productive. The choice to utilize maps in an examination of Mexican state-formation is not one made purely for the sake of academic fashion. He criticizes the uncritical use and disdain for spatial theory in the discipline, generalizing these detractors as seeing space only as a “static and neutral category, a pre-political object, and little more than a passive stage upon which historical subjects play assigned roles” (3). Instead, Craib argues that “space as a stage,” in this case the Mexican state’s fixation with territoriality, “has a history, one inextricably linked to the social abstraction of commodity exchange and the political abstraction of the modern, territorial state” (5). In this sense, he contributes to the historiography of geospatial analysis in history by introducing new voices from the fields of anthropology and human geography as vital in the field’s historical understanding of cartography and human interactions with the physical environment. Craib drills down on these interactions, identifying a dialectical relationship throughout much of Mexico’s modern history. Specifically, the topic of the ejido, or land administrated by the state for public agricultural use, comes up over and over in the sources as a site of contest between the state and the local. At the high point of this debate, as presented in the book’s epilogue, the Mexican government passed legislation in the 1990s that allow for public land to be privatized and sold to foreigners or individuals. In response, native locals, who related the ejido with the promise of nationalization from the Mexican Revolution, treated this like “the slaughter of one of the sacred cows of revolutionary iconography” (256). Craib here reinforces the political and social weight of space, arguing for the ejido’s changing political value and interpretations.<br /> <br /> However, &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039;’s key strength may also be its greatest weakness. Using maps involves a great deal of interpretive work and although there are numerous primary sources reinforcing Craib’s thesis on state desires for territoriality, there are also examples of ‘artistic’ interpretation that may be less credible. For example, chapter three is dedicated to the study of land plotting, divisions, and the use of foreign intellectuals in the state’s survey work. Craib describes one of the maps as a “compelling image of the land division as well as the mindset that promoted it,” stating that the “grid of property does not sit lightly over the land but appears almost to strangle it, forcing a fractured land into Platonic forms” (91). This argument is initially difficult to accept, as it focuses too much on a non-technical style of interpretive analysis. It is in later chapters that he develops this socio-cultural lens he outlines in his introduction, focusing less on the specifics of the physical maps and more on the symbolic work of state surveyors and the competition between local knowledge and the state imaginary. In this sense, Craib’s abstract analysis of maps seems less like a stylistic choice made for the sake of entertaining reading, although it falls through at times nevertheless, and more a key component in formulating the relationship between state and local interpretations of space.<br /> <br /> Craib’s work contributes a great deal not only to Latin American historiography on state-formation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but also helps legitimize the use of spatial theory and geography in history. Utilizing a wide variety of theories and methods and an extensive collection of primary sources, &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039; presents a new angle in readings of the nascent Mexican state. Instead of purely political or economic examinations behind Mexico’s shifts from republic to dictatorship, Craib’s argument presents a contest between a struggling nation in search of identity, native peoples struggling to retain their native customs, and a new appreciation for space and land as analytical lenses in defining the role of the state in everyday life.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Raymond B. Craib]]<br /> [[Caterogy:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Latin American History]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Cartographic_Mexico&diff=3566 2018-02-19T19:27:11Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Cartographic Mexico: A History of State Fixations and Fugitive Landscapes<br /> | author = Raymond B. Craib<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = Nov. 2004<br /> | pages = 328<br /> | isbn = 082233416X<br /> | image = [[File:Cartographic Mexico.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> [http://history.cornell.edu/raymond-b-craib Raymond B. Craib]’s &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico: A History of State Fixations and Fugitive Landscapes&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; explores the spatial history of Mexico’s state-formation throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In defining ‘spatial history,’ Craib argues that the “history of the modern Mexican state is inextricably entwined with [space] it has not only occupied but actively produced” (2). Specifically, he defines this phenomenon as a series of “contested, dialectical, and social (not merely technical) processes by which explorers, surveyors, and cartographers attempted to define, codify, and naturalize space in cooperation and struggle with the people they encountered in the field” (2). In short, &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039; examines a familiar theme in Latin American history, that being the relationship between the burgeoning bureaucratic state and the local rural people, through the novel lens of spatial theory and map-making. Maps, at least in the national imaginary, help define the space a nation occupies concerning itself and its neighboring nation-states. They affirm the boundaries and reach of the government’s authority, justifying a nation’s material existence by delineating its beginning and end. However, Craib complicates this ideal spatial imaginary by introducing a dialectical relationship between state agents and local people on the ground. It is this interaction, between government intermediaries and villagers in the rural countryside, that serves as the primary theme and driving argument for &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039;.<br /> <br /> Over the course of nine chapters, each structured as independent essays organized chronologically from the 1820s to the 1930s, Craib presents the Mexican state’s goal in defining the nation’s boundaries akin to that of an existential dilemma. He defines this dilemma as the need to “demonstrate that [the] nation” is “something more than mere conjecture” (19). In contrast, the government’s quest for territoriality clashes with the realities of those physically living in these vast swathes of unmapped territory. Focusing closely on the region of Veracruz, Craib describes this dialectical back-and-forth between state and local as a competition between “measurement” and “memory,” “inscription” and “inheritance,” and “technical abstraction with social experience as arbiters of reality” (57). Throughout the book, the specific context of the state-local dialectic shifts from topic to topic, with each essay highlighting the introduction of new technologies or obstacles. For example, chapter one addresses the nascent Mexican state’s crisis of identity in the wake of independence in 1821, while chapters four and five follow the creation of the Comisión Geográfico-Exploradora and its ties to the goals of Porfirio Díaz&#039;s regime. Regardless of the period, Craib relies heavily on a Foucauldian-style ‘knowledge is power’ analysis of the state’s motives in acquiring geographical and statistical information. Furthermore, he draws inspiration from other similar academics in the fields of history, human geography, anthropology, and spatial theory, including James C. Scott, Edward Said, and Fernand Braudel. In contrast, most of Craib’s arguments for local peoples&#039; maneuvering through state apparatuses comes from primary sources on the period and authors such as Bernard Cohn and Deborah Poole, both historians of imperialism and imperial subjects. Furthermore, Craib’s excellent use of primary sources, from first-hand accounts to his use and interpretation of period maps, are at the forefront of his analysis in each chapter.<br /> <br /> On the note of source material, Craib grounds his reasoning for the use of spatial theory in historical analysis as necessary and productive. The choice to utilize maps in an examination of Mexican state-formation is not one made purely for the sake of academic fashion. He criticizes the uncritical use and disdain for spatial theory in the discipline, generalizing these detractors as seeing space only as a “static and neutral category, a pre-political object, and little more than a passive stage upon which historical subjects play assigned roles” (3). Instead, Craib argues that “space as a stage,” in this case the Mexican state’s fixation with territoriality, “has a history, one inextricably linked to the social abstraction of commodity exchange and the political abstraction of the modern, territorial state” (5). In this sense, he contributes to the historiography of geospatial analysis in history by introducing new voices from the fields of anthropology and human geography as vital in the field’s historical understanding of cartography and human interactions with the physical environment. Craib drills down on these interactions, identifying a dialectical relationship throughout much of Mexico’s modern history. Specifically, the topic of the ejido, or land administrated by the state for public agricultural use, comes up over and over in the sources as a site of contest between the state and the local. At the high point of this debate, as presented in the book’s epilogue, the Mexican government passed legislation in the 1990s that allow for public land to be privatized and sold to foreigners or individuals. In response, native locals, who related the ejido with the promise of nationalization from the Mexican Revolution, treated this like “the slaughter of one of the sacred cows of revolutionary iconography” (256). Craib here reinforces the political and social weight of space, arguing for the ejido’s changing political value and interpretations.<br /> <br /> However, &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039;’s key strength may also be its greatest weakness. Using maps involves a great deal of interpretive work and although there are numerous primary sources reinforcing Craib’s thesis on state desires for territoriality, there are also examples of ‘artistic’ interpretation that may be less credible. For example, chapter three is dedicated to the study of land plotting, divisions, and the use of foreign intellectuals in the state’s survey work. Craib describes one of the maps as a “compelling image of the land division as well as the mindset that promoted it,” stating that the “grid of property does not sit lightly over the land but appears almost to strangle it, forcing a fractured land into Platonic forms” (91). This argument is initially difficult to accept, as it focuses too much on a non-technical style of interpretive analysis. It is in later chapters that he develops this socio-cultural lens he outlines in his introduction, focusing less on the specifics of the physical maps and more on the symbolic work of state surveyors and the competition between local knowledge and the state imaginary. In this sense, Craib’s abstract analysis of maps seems less like a stylistic choice made for the sake of entertaining reading, although it falls through at times nevertheless, and more a key component in formulating the relationship between state and local interpretations of space.<br /> <br /> Craib’s work contributes a great deal not only to Latin American historiography on state-formation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but also helps legitimize the use of spatial theory and geography in history. Utilizing a wide variety of theories and methods and an extensive collection of primary sources, &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039; presents a new angle in readings of the nascent Mexican state. Instead of purely political or economic examinations behind Mexico’s shifts from republic to dictatorship, Craib’s argument presents a contest between a struggling nation in search of identity, native peoples struggling to retain their native customs, and a new appreciation for space and land as analytical lenses in defining the role of the state in everyday life.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Raymond B. Craib]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Latin American History]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Cartographic_Mexico&diff=3565 2018-02-19T19:25:30Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Cartographic Mexico: A History of State Fixations and Fugitive Landscapes<br /> | author = Raymond B. Craib<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = Nov. 2004<br /> | pages = 328<br /> | isbn = 082233416X<br /> | image = [[File:Cartographic Mexico.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> Raymond B. Craib’s &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico: A History of State Fixations and Fugitive Landscapes&#039;&#039; explores the spatial history of Mexico’s state-formation throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In defining ‘spatial history,’ Craib argues that the “history of the modern Mexican state is inextricably entwined with [space] it has not only occupied but actively produced” (2). Specifically, he defines this phenomenon as a series of “contested, dialectical, and social (not merely technical) processes by which explorers, surveyors, and cartographers attempted to define, codify, and naturalize space in cooperation and struggle with the people they encountered in the field” (2). In short, &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039; examines a familiar theme in Latin American history, that being the relationship between the burgeoning bureaucratic state and the local rural people, through the novel lens of spatial theory and map-making. Maps, at least in the national imaginary, help define the space a nation occupies concerning itself and its neighboring nation-states. They affirm the boundaries and reach of the government’s authority, justifying a nation’s material existence by delineating its beginning and end. However, Craib complicates this ideal spatial imaginary by introducing a dialectical relationship between state agents and local people on the ground. It is this interaction, between government intermediaries and villagers in the rural countryside, that serves as the primary theme and driving argument for &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039;.<br /> <br /> Over the course of nine chapters, each structured as independent essays organized chronologically from the 1820s to the 1930s, Craib presents the Mexican state’s goal in defining the nation’s boundaries akin to that of an existential dilemma. He defines this dilemma as the need to “demonstrate that [the] nation” is “something more than mere conjecture” (19). In contrast, the government’s quest for territoriality clashes with the realities of those physically living in these vast swathes of unmapped territory. Focusing closely on the region of Veracruz, Craib describes this dialectical back-and-forth between state and local as a competition between “measurement” and “memory,” “inscription” and “inheritance,” and “technical abstraction with social experience as arbiters of reality” (57). Throughout the book, the specific context of the state-local dialectic shifts from topic to topic, with each essay highlighting the introduction of new technologies or obstacles. For example, chapter one addresses the nascent Mexican state’s crisis of identity in the wake of independence in 1821, while chapters four and five follow the creation of the Comisión Geográfico-Exploradora and its ties to the goals of Porfirio Díaz&#039;s regime. Regardless of the period, Craib relies heavily on a Foucauldian-style ‘knowledge is power’ analysis of the state’s motives in acquiring geographical and statistical information. Furthermore, he draws inspiration from other similar academics in the fields of history, human geography, anthropology, and spatial theory, including James C. Scott, Edward Said, and Fernand Braudel. In contrast, most of Craib’s arguments for local peoples&#039; maneuvering through state apparatuses comes from primary sources on the period and authors such as Bernard Cohn and Deborah Poole, both historians of imperialism and imperial subjects. Furthermore, Craib’s excellent use of primary sources, from first-hand accounts to his use and interpretation of period maps, are at the forefront of his analysis in each chapter.<br /> <br /> On the note of source material, Craib grounds his reasoning for the use of spatial theory in historical analysis as necessary and productive. The choice to utilize maps in an examination of Mexican state-formation is not one made purely for the sake of academic fashion. He criticizes the uncritical use and disdain for spatial theory in the discipline, generalizing these detractors as seeing space only as a “static and neutral category, a pre-political object, and little more than a passive stage upon which historical subjects play assigned roles” (3). Instead, Craib argues that “space as a stage,” in this case the Mexican state’s fixation with territoriality, “has a history, one inextricably linked to the social abstraction of commodity exchange and the political abstraction of the modern, territorial state” (5). In this sense, he contributes to the historiography of geospatial analysis in history by introducing new voices from the fields of anthropology and human geography as vital in the field’s historical understanding of cartography and human interactions with the physical environment. Craib drills down on these interactions, identifying a dialectical relationship throughout much of Mexico’s modern history. Specifically, the topic of the ejido, or land administrated by the state for public agricultural use, comes up over and over in the sources as a site of contest between the state and the local. At the high point of this debate, as presented in the book’s epilogue, the Mexican government passed legislation in the 1990s that allow for public land to be privatized and sold to foreigners or individuals. In response, native locals, who related the ejido with the promise of nationalization from the Mexican Revolution, treated this like “the slaughter of one of the sacred cows of revolutionary iconography” (256). Craib here reinforces the political and social weight of space, arguing for the ejido’s changing political value and interpretations.<br /> <br /> However, &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039;’s key strength may also be its greatest weakness. Using maps involves a great deal of interpretive work and although there are numerous primary sources reinforcing Craib’s thesis on state desires for territoriality, there are also examples of ‘artistic’ interpretation that may be less credible. For example, chapter three is dedicated to the study of land plotting, divisions, and the use of foreign intellectuals in the state’s survey work. Craib describes one of the maps as a “compelling image of the land division as well as the mindset that promoted it,” stating that the “grid of property does not sit lightly over the land but appears almost to strangle it, forcing a fractured land into Platonic forms” (91). This argument is initially difficult to accept, as it focuses too much on a non-technical style of interpretive analysis. It is in later chapters that he develops this socio-cultural lens he outlines in his introduction, focusing less on the specifics of the physical maps and more on the symbolic work of state surveyors and the competition between local knowledge and the state imaginary. In this sense, Craib’s abstract analysis of maps seems less like a stylistic choice made for the sake of entertaining reading, although it falls through at times nevertheless, and more a key component in formulating the relationship between state and local interpretations of space.<br /> <br /> Craib’s work contributes a great deal not only to Latin American historiography on state-formation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but also helps legitimize the use of spatial theory and geography in history. Utilizing a wide variety of theories and methods and an extensive collection of primary sources, &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039; presents a new angle in readings of the nascent Mexican state. Instead of purely political or economic examinations behind Mexico’s shifts from republic to dictatorship, Craib’s argument presents a contest between a struggling nation in search of identity, native peoples struggling to retain their native customs, and a new appreciation for space and land as analytical lenses in defining the role of the state in everyday life.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Raymond B. Craib]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Latin American History]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Cartographic_Mexico&diff=3564 2018-02-19T19:23:35Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Cartographic Mexico: A History of State Fixations and Fugitive Landscapes<br /> | author = Raymond B. Craib<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = Nov. 2004<br /> | pages = 328<br /> | isbn = 082233416X<br /> | image = [[File:Cartographic Mexico.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> Raymond B. Craib’s &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico: A History of State Fixations and Fugitive Landscapes&#039;&#039; explores the spatial history of Mexico’s state-formation throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In defining ‘spatial history,’ Craib argues that the “history of the modern Mexican state is inextricably entwined with [space] it has not only occupied but actively produced” (2). Specifically, he defines this phenomenon as a series of “contested, dialectical, and social (not merely technical) processes by which explorers, surveyors, and cartographers attempted to define, codify, and naturalize space in cooperation and struggle with the people they encountered in the field” (2). In short, &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039; examines a familiar theme in Latin American history, that being the relationship between the burgeoning bureaucratic state and the local rural people, through the novel lens of spatial theory and map-making. Maps, at least in the national imaginary, help define the space a nation occupies concerning itself and its neighboring nation-states. They affirm the boundaries and reach of the government’s authority, justifying a nation’s material existence by delineating its beginning and end. However, Craib complicates this ideal spatial imaginary by introducing a dialectical relationship between state agents and local people on the ground. It is this interaction, between government intermediaries and villagers in the rural countryside, that serves as the primary theme and driving argument for &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039;.<br /> <br /> Over the course of nine chapters, each structured as independent essays organized chronologically from the 1820s to the 1930s, Craib presents the Mexican state’s goal in defining the nation’s boundaries akin to that of an existential dilemma. He defines this dilemma as the need to “demonstrate that [the] nation” is “something more than mere conjecture” (19). In contrast, the government’s quest for territoriality clashes with the realities of those physically living in these vast swathes of unmapped territory. Focusing closely on the region of Veracruz, Craib describes this dialectical back-and-forth between state and local as a competition between “measurement” and “memory,” “inscription” and “inheritance,” and “technical abstraction with social experience as arbiters of reality” (57). Throughout the book, the specific context of the state-local dialectic shifts from topic to topic, with each essay highlighting the introduction of new technologies or obstacles. For example, chapter one addresses the nascent Mexican state’s crisis of identity in the wake of independence in 1821, while chapters four and five follow the creation of the Comisión Geográfico-Exploradora and its ties to the goals of Porfirio Díaz&#039;s regime. Regardless of the period, Craib relies heavily on a Foucauldian-style ‘knowledge is power’ analysis of the state’s motives in acquiring geographical and statistical information. Furthermore, he draws inspiration from other similar academics in the fields of history, human geography, anthropology, and spatial theory, including James C. Scott, Edward Said, and Fernand Braudel. In contrast, most of Craib’s arguments for local peoples&#039; maneuvering through state apparatuses comes from primary sources on the period and authors such as Bernard Cohn and Deborah Poole, both historians of imperialism and imperial subjects. Furthermore, Craib’s excellent use of primary sources, from first-hand accounts to his use and interpretation of period maps, are at the forefront of his analysis in each chapter.<br /> <br /> On the note of source material, Craib grounds his reasoning for the use of spatial theory in historical analysis as necessary and productive. The choice to utilize maps in an examination of Mexican state-formation is not one made purely for the sake of academic fashion. He criticizes the uncritical use and disdain for spatial theory in the discipline, generalizing these detractors as seeing space only as a “static and neutral category, a pre-political object, and little more than a passive stage upon which historical subjects play assigned roles” (3). Instead, Craib argues that “space as a stage,” in this case the Mexican state’s fixation with territoriality, “has a history, one inextricably linked to the social abstraction of commodity exchange and the political abstraction of the modern, territorial state” (5). In this sense, he contributes to the historiography of geospatial analysis in history by introducing new voices from the fields of anthropology and human geography as vital in the field’s historical understanding of cartography and human interactions with the physical environment. Craib drills down on these interactions, identifying a dialectical relationship throughout much of Mexico’s modern history. Specifically, the topic of the ejido, or land administrated by the state for public agricultural use, comes up over and over in the sources as a site of contest between the state and the local. At the high point of this debate, as presented in the book’s epilogue, the Mexican government passed legislation in the 1990s that allow for public land to be privatized and sold to foreigners or individuals. In response, native locals, who related the ejido with the promise of nationalization from the Mexican Revolution, treated this like “the slaughter of one of the sacred cows of revolutionary iconography” (256). Craib here reinforces the political and social weight of space, arguing for the ejido’s changing political value and interpretations.<br /> <br /> However, &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039;’s key strength may also be its greatest weakness. Using maps involves a great deal of interpretive work and although there are numerous primary sources reinforcing Craib’s thesis on state desires for territoriality, there are also examples of ‘artistic’ interpretation that may be less credible. For example, chapter three is dedicated to the study of land plotting, divisions, and the use of foreign intellectuals in the state’s survey work. Craib describes one of the maps as a “compelling image of the land division as well as the mindset that promoted it,” stating that the “grid of property does not sit lightly over the land but appears almost to strangle it, forcing a fractured land into Platonic forms” (91). This argument is initially difficult to accept, as it focuses too much on a non-technical style of interpretive analysis. It is in later chapters that he develops this socio-cultural lens he outlines in his introduction, focusing less on the specifics of the physical maps and more on the symbolic work of state surveyors and the competition between local knowledge and the state imaginary. In this sense, Craib’s abstract analysis of maps seems less like a stylistic choice made for the sake of entertaining reading, although it falls through at times nevertheless, and more a key component in formulating the relationship between state and local interpretations of space.<br /> <br /> Craib’s work contributes a great deal not only to Latin American historiography on state-formation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but also helps legitimize the use of spatial theory and geography in history. Utilizing a wide variety of theories and methods and an extensive collection of primary sources, &#039;&#039;Cartographic Mexico&#039;&#039; presents a new angle in readings of the nascent Mexican state. Instead of purely political or economic examinations behind Mexico’s shifts from republic to dictatorship, Craib’s argument presents a contest between a struggling nation in search of identity, native peoples struggling to retain their native customs, and a new appreciation for space and land as analytical lenses in defining the role of the state in everyday life.</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=File:Cartographic_Mexico.jpg&diff=3556 2018-02-18T23:28:36Z

<p>StevenGarcia: Book cover.</p> <hr /> <div>Book cover.</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Cartographic_Mexico&diff=3555 2018-02-18T23:28:20Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Cartographic Mexico: A History of State Fixations and Fugitive Landscapes<br /> | author = Raymond B. Craib<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = Nov. 2004<br /> | pages = 328<br /> | isbn = 082233416X<br /> | image = [[File:Cartographic Mexico.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Cartographic_Mexico&diff=3554 2018-02-18T23:28:03Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Cartographic Mexico: A History of State Fixations and Fugitive Landscapes<br /> | author = Raymond B. Craib<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = Nov. 2004<br /> | pages = 328<br /> | isbn = 082233416X<br /> | image = [[File:Cartographic Mexico.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Cartographic_Mexico&diff=3553 2018-02-18T22:36:24Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>&#039;&#039;Work in Progress ...&#039;&#039;</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Latin_American_History&diff=3552 2018-02-18T22:36:04Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>==Book Summaries==<br /> * Briggs, [[Reproducing Empire|Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico]], 2002<br /> * Craib, [[Cartographic Mexico|Cartographic Mexico: A History of State Fixations and Fugitive Landscapes]], 2004<br /> * Gleijeses, [[Conflicting Missions|Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976]], 2001</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Cartographic_Mexico&diff=3551 2018-02-18T22:34:32Z

<p>StevenGarcia: Created page with &quot;Test.&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Test.</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3350 2017-10-05T04:46:48Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Laura_Stoler Ann Laura Stoler], &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States and its geographic periphery. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, to the westward expansion of the frontier and the antebellum period, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In these contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s suggestions for revision in the study of North America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; (1) Furthermore, she calls for a geographic and disciplinary comparative approach to studying intimacy (i.e., self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing significant consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; (4) These elements, inspired by the works of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault Michel Foucault] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said Edward Said], ground &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship on colonialism and imperialism produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to argue against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on sources produced by colonial institutions alone to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when comparing the colonized to the colonizer. (55) In this context, Stoler and company examine the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline to compare similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics in the humanities to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States and empire at large. Moving past paradigms of American exceptionalism, she focuses instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically and chronologically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate sphere in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism (roughly 1700s to mid-1800s) not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that [https://www.english.upenn.edu/people/amy-kaplan Amy Kaplan&#039;s] 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument against viewing American imperialism as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized and colonizer and how these categories formed. (26-27) Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective to try and answer this historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these issues, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship as a contributing field. The &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical studies of imperialism helped bring these intimate spheres of identity, arguably Stoler&#039;s central methodological point, to the fore. (30) The culmination of these developments is what she proposes as a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the periphery and metropole of empire and how they affect one another internally. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, she focuses on everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for innovative scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> The book centers around this core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) Stoler’s method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how hierarchies of power penetrated intimate settings of family and identity, 3) who received the privilege of producing knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how her methodology may expand into other periods. For example, the first section features [http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/people/dsal007 Damon Salesa&#039;s] &quot;Samoa&#039;s Half-Castes and Some Frontiers of Comparison,&quot; where he argues that the combined presence of multiple imperial powers and Samoan half-castes with mixed ancestry serves as a point of comparison. He states that Samoa was a joint imperial frontier that depended not on large colonial bureaucracies, but instead colonizing individuals that embodied the interests of empire through private and public action on the ground. Half-castes also posed a question of what Salesa calls &quot;strategic intimacy,&quot; further developing Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate by discussing how imperial powers on Samoa categorized and &#039;civilized&#039; this mixed population to meet their political agenda. (72) In the second section, [http://www.history.upenn.edu/people/faculty/kathleen-m-brown Kathleen Brown&#039;s] &quot;Body Work in the Antebellum United States&quot; explores a broader timeline for the roots of America&#039;s imperial character, focusing on how household labor navigated domestic culture both as servants and dwellers of a home space during the antebellum period. Her focus on personal wealth, the physical presence of servants in upper-class white households, and the ever-present hierarchies of power and race helped forge the American concept of civilization and respectability. Finally, in the third section, [https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/people/profile/1285/Alexandra_Minna_Stern Alexandra Stern&#039;s] &quot;An Empire of Tests: Psychometrics and the Paradoxes of Nationalism in the Americas&quot; shows how intelligence tests and racial science in the early twentieth century exemplified Foucauldian bio-power, as these tests generated statistical information on populations and helped highlight difference that then mobilized into concrete structures of dominance. Stern also touches upon Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate self by examining how demographers and scientists traced and justified their judgements on the human &#039;interior&#039; through lenses of psychology or germ theory. Following the main three essay sections, the concluding section features [https://as.nyu.edu/history/people.linda-gordon.html Linda Gordon&#039;s] &quot;Internal Colonialism and Gender&quot; as a wrap up to the key ideas presented in the book. She comments on the trajectory of the &quot;internal colonialism&quot; social theory in American academia and its struggles when presented with topics of gender or kinship. (427) However, she also highlights the strengths of Stoler&#039;s model in examinations of individual experiences and relationships within larger structures of colonialism and imperial domination.<br /> <br /> These are a few examples that serve to provide a broad overview of the work and show the multidisciplinary approach Stoler calls for in her introduction. However, is this approach successful in its goal of not only encouraging a variety of perspectives but on examining and comparing intimate bodies? Overall, she makes a compelling argument for engaging in a historical exploration of how constructs of race, gender, sexuality, and more developed within the confines of imperial societies both at the top and bottom of social hierarchies. However, even though her commendable historical ethnography garners great praise and followers in the academy, she fails to adhere to some conventions in the field of history. For instance, her interchangeable use of the term &#039;imperial&#039; and &#039;colonial&#039; is confusing and, to further exacerbate the problem, she does little to clarify these in her two essays in the introduction. Her strengths in history lie in her methods, namely the previously mentioned use of comparisons, points of geographic and cultural convergence, and the importance of individual experiences and context in any given colonial situation. Stoler emphasizes the individual historical actor, &quot;what they conceived as equivalent contexts, glossed over as common features or marked off as wholly uncommon ground,” and how this reveals much about the categories developed by the colonizer or colonized. (6) Yet, it is the sheer scope of this project that is the weakest part of the work. She casts a broad geographic net -- perhaps too broad for historians who may prefer a more specific zone of study. &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; is no exception, as the authors within try to cover both the U.S. proper, its peripheries, and other countries and peoples related to American colonial interests during any given period. Also, the chronological scope of the work is immense, with writers tackling everything from early colonial America to the twentieth century. Making points of comparison along such vast distances of time and space are bound to be fraught with issues, especially if these essayists seek to make arguments about continuities in American colonialism. A more centralized theme and period would have benefited this book greatly, perhaps limiting the essays to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century or an examination of a few key territories and the American mainland. However, it nonetheless succeeds in testing the strength of Stoler&#039;s method in a wide variety of imperial settings within the American colonial experience. Stoler’s use of historical comparison and focus on individual experiences is an applicable methodology that enlightens future scholarship and helps revive socio-cultural history as a practical means of exploring the American imperial project and the intimate experience of the individual historical subject caught within those power structures.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3349 2017-10-05T03:20:55Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Laura_Stoler Ann Laura Stoler], &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States and its geographic periphery. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, to the westward expansion of the frontier and the antebellum period, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In these contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s suggestions for revision in the study of North America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; (1) Furthermore, she calls for a geographic and disciplinary comparative approach to studying intimacy (i.e., self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing significant consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; (4) These elements, inspired by the works of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault Michel Foucault] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said Edward Said], ground &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship on colonialism and imperialism produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to argue against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on sources produced by colonial institutions alone to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when comparing the colonized to the colonizer. (55) In this context, Stoler and company examine the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline to compare similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics in the humanities to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States and empire at large. Moving past paradigms of American exceptionalism, she focuses instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically and chronologically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate sphere in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism (roughly 1700s to mid-1800s) not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that [https://www.english.upenn.edu/people/amy-kaplan Amy Kaplan&#039;s] 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument against viewing American imperialism as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized and colonizer and how these categories formed. (26-27) Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective to try and answer this historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these issues, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship as a contributing field. The &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical studies of imperialism helped bring these intimate spheres of identity, arguably Stoler&#039;s central methodological point, to the fore. (30) The culmination of these developments is what she proposes as a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the periphery and metropole of empire and how they affect one another internally. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, she focuses on everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for innovative scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> The book centers around this core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) Stoler’s method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how hierarchies of power penetrated intimate settings of family and identity, 3) who received the privilege of producing knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how her methodology may expand into other periods. For example, the first section features [http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/people/dsal007 Damon Salesa&#039;s] &quot;Samoa&#039;s Half-Castes and Some Frontiers of Comparison,&quot; where he argues that the combined presence of multiple imperial powers and Samoan half-castes with mixed ancestry serves as a point of comparison. He states that Samoa was a joint imperial frontier that depended not on large colonial bureaucracies, but instead colonizing individuals that embodied the interests of empire through private and public action on the ground. Half-castes also posed a question of what Salesa calls &quot;strategic intimacy,&quot; further developing Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate by discussing how imperial powers on Samoa categorized and &#039;civilized&#039; this mixed population to meet their political agenda. (72) In the second section, [http://www.history.upenn.edu/people/faculty/kathleen-m-brown Kathleen Brown&#039;s] &quot;Body Work in the Antebellum United States&quot; explores a broader timeline for the roots of America&#039;s imperial character, focusing on how household labor navigated domestic culture both as servants and dwellers of a home space during the antebellum period. Her focus on personal wealth, the physical presence of servants in upper-class white households, and the ever-present hierarchies of power and race helped forge the American concept of civilization and respectability. Finally, in the third section, [https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/people/profile/1285/Alexandra_Minna_Stern Alexandra Stern&#039;s] &quot;An Empire of Tests: Psychometrics and the Paradoxes of Nationalism in the Americas&quot; shows how intelligence tests and racial science in the early twentieth century exemplified Foucauldian bio-power, as these tests generated statistical information on populations and helped highlight difference that then mobilized into concrete structures of dominance. Stern also touches upon Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate self by examining how demographers and scientists traced and justified their judgements on the human &#039;interior&#039; through lenses of psychology or germ theory. Following the main three essay sections, the concluding section features [https://as.nyu.edu/history/people.linda-gordon.html Linda Gordon&#039;s] &quot;Internal Colonialism and Gender&quot; as a wrap up to the key ideas presented in the book. She comments on the trajectory of the &quot;internal colonialism&quot; social theory in American academia and its struggles when presented with topics of gender or kinship. (427) However, she also highlights the strengths of Stoler&#039;s model in examinations of individual experiences and relationships within larger structures of colonialism and imperial domination.<br /> <br /> These are a few examples that serve to provide a broad overview of the work and show the multidisciplinary approach Stoler calls for in her introduction. However, is this approach successful in its goal of not only encouraging a variety of perspectives but on examining and comparing intimate bodies? Overall, she makes a compelling argument for engaging in a historical exploration of how constructs of race, gender, sexuality, and more developed within the confines of imperial societies both at the top and bottom of social hierarchies. However, even though her commendable historical ethnography garners great praise and followers in the academy, she fails to adhere to some conventions in the field of history. For instance, her interchangeable use of the term &#039;imperial&#039; and &#039;colonial&#039; is confusing and, to further exacerbate the problem, she does little to clarify these in her two essays in the introduction. Her strengths in history lie in her methods, namely the previously mentioned use of comparisons, points of geographic and cultural convergence, and the importance of individual experiences and context in any given colonial situation. Stoler emphasizes the individual historical actor, &quot;what they conceived as equivalent contexts, glossed over as common features or marked off as wholly uncommon ground,” and how this reveals much about the categories developed by the colonizer or colonized. Yet, it is the sheer scope of this project that is the weakest part of the work. She casts a broad geographic net -- perhaps too broad for historians who may prefer a more specific zone of study. &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; is no exception, as the authors within try to cover both the U.S. proper, its peripheries, and other countries and peoples related to American colonial interests during any given period. Also, the chronological scope of the work is immense, with writers tackling everything from early colonial America to the twentieth century. Making points of comparison along such vast distances of time and space are bound to be fraught with issues, especially if these essayists seek to make arguments about continuities in American colonialism. A more centralized theme and period would have benefited this book greatly, perhaps limiting the essays to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century or an examination of a few key territories and the American mainland. However, it nonetheless succeeds in testing the strength of Stoler&#039;s method in a wide variety of imperial settings within the American colonial experience. Stoler’s use of historical comparison and focus on individual experiences is an applicable methodology that enlightens future scholarship and helps revive socio-cultural history as a practical means of exploring the American imperial project and the intimate experience of the individual historical subject caught within those power structures.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3348 2017-10-05T03:19:33Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Laura_Stoler Ann Laura Stoler], &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States and its geographic periphery. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, to the westward expansion of the frontier and the antebellum period, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In these contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s suggestions for revision in the study of North America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; (1) Furthermore, she calls for a geographic and disciplinary comparative approach to studying intimacy (i.e., self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing significant consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; (4) These elements, inspired by the works of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault Michel Foucault] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said Edward Said], ground &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship on colonialism and imperialism produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to argue against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on sources produced by colonial institutions alone to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when comparing the colonized to the colonizer. (55) In this context, Stoler and company examine the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline to compare similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics in the humanities to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States and empire at large. Moving past paradigms of American exceptionalism, she focuses instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically and chronologically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate sphere in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism (roughly 1700s to mid-1800s) not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that [https://www.english.upenn.edu/people/amy-kaplan Amy Kaplan&#039;s] 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument against viewing American imperialism as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized and colonizer and how these categories formed. (26-27) Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective to try and answer this historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these issues, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship as a contributing field. The &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical studies of imperialism helped bring these intimate spheres of identity, arguably Stoler&#039;s central methodological point, to the fore. (30) The culmination of these developments is what she proposes as a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the periphery and metropole of empire and how they affect one another internally. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, she focuses on everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for innovative scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> The book centers around this core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) Stoler’s method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how hierarchies of power penetrated intimate settings of family and identity, 3) who received the privilege of producing knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how her methodology may expand into other periods. For example, the first section features [http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/people/dsal007 Damon Salesa&#039;s] &quot;Samoa&#039;s Half-Castes and Some Frontiers of Comparison,&quot; where he argues that the combined presence of multiple imperial powers and Samoan half-castes with mixed ancestry serves as a point of comparison. He states that Samoa was a joint imperial frontier that depended not on large colonial bureaucracies, but instead colonizing individuals that embodied the interests of empire through private and public action on the ground. Half-castes also posed a question of what Salesa calls &quot;strategic intimacy,&quot; further developing Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate by discussing how imperial powers on Samoa categorized and &#039;civilized&#039; this mixed population to meet their political agenda. (72) In the second section, [http://www.history.upenn.edu/people/faculty/kathleen-m-brown Kathleen Brown&#039;s] &quot;Body Work in the Antebellum United States&quot; explores a broader timeline for the roots of America&#039;s imperial character, focusing on how household labor navigated domestic culture both as servants and dwellers of a home space during the antebellum period. Her focus on personal wealth, the physical presence of servants in upper-class white households, and the ever-present hierarchies of power and race helped forge the American concept of civilization and respectability. Finally, in the third section, [https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/people/profile/1285/Alexandra_Minna_Stern Alexandra Stern&#039;s] &quot;An Empire of Tests: Psychometrics and the Paradoxes of Nationalism in the Americas&quot; shows how intelligence tests and racial science in the early twentieth century exemplified Foucauldian bio-power, as these tests generated statistical information on populations and helped highlight difference that then mobilized into concrete structures of dominance. Stern also touches upon Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate self by examining how demographers and scientists traced and justified their judgements on the human &#039;interior&#039; through lenses of psychology or germ theory. Following the main three essay sections, the concluding section features Linda Gordon&#039;s &quot;Internal Colonialism and Gender&quot; as a wrap up to the key ideas presented in the book. She comments on the trajectory of the &quot;internal colonialism&quot; social theory in American academia and its struggles when presented with topics of gender or kinship. (427) However, she also highlights the strengths of Stoler&#039;s model in examinations of individual experiences and relationships within larger structures of colonialism and imperial domination.<br /> <br /> These are a few examples that serve to provide a broad overview of the work and show the multidisciplinary approach Stoler calls for in her introduction. However, is this approach successful in its goal of not only encouraging a variety of perspectives but on examining and comparing intimate bodies? Overall, she makes a compelling argument for engaging in a historical exploration of how constructs of race, gender, sexuality, and more developed within the confines of imperial societies both at the top and bottom of social hierarchies. However, even though her commendable historical ethnography garners great praise and followers in the academy, she fails to adhere to some conventions in the field of history. For instance, her interchangeable use of the term &#039;imperial&#039; and &#039;colonial&#039; is confusing and, to further exacerbate the problem, she does little to clarify these in her two essays in the introduction. Her strengths in history lie in her methods, namely the previously mentioned use of comparisons, points of geographic and cultural convergence, and the importance of individual experiences and context in any given colonial situation. Stoler emphasizes the individual historical actor, &quot;what they conceived as equivalent contexts, glossed over as common features or marked off as wholly uncommon ground,” and how this reveals much about the categories developed by the colonizer or colonized. Yet, it is the sheer scope of this project that is the weakest part of the work. She casts a broad geographic net -- perhaps too broad for historians who may prefer a more specific zone of study. &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; is no exception, as the authors within try to cover both the U.S. proper, its peripheries, and other countries and peoples related to American colonial interests during any given period. Also, the chronological scope of the work is immense, with writers tackling everything from early colonial America to the twentieth century. Making points of comparison along such vast distances of time and space are bound to be fraught with issues, especially if these essayists seek to make arguments about continuities in American colonialism. A more centralized theme and period would have benefited this book greatly, perhaps limiting the essays to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century or an examination of a few key territories and the American mainland. However, it nonetheless succeeds in testing the strength of Stoler&#039;s method in a wide variety of imperial settings within the American colonial experience. Stoler’s use of historical comparison and focus on individual experiences is an applicable methodology that enlightens future scholarship and helps revive socio-cultural history as a practical means of exploring the American imperial project and the intimate experience of the individual historical subject caught within those power structures.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3347 2017-10-05T03:19:17Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Laura_Stoler Ann Laura Stoler], &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States and its geographic periphery. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, to the westward expansion of the frontier and the antebellum period, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In these contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s suggestions for revision in the study of North America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; (1) Furthermore, she calls for a geographic and disciplinary comparative approach to studying intimacy (i.e., self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing significant consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; (4) These elements, inspired by the works of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault Michel Foucault] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said Edward Said], ground &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship on colonialism and imperialism produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to argue against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on sources produced by colonial institutions alone to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when comparing the colonized to the colonizer. (55) In this context, Stoler and company examine the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline to compare similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics in the humanities to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States and empire at large. Moving past paradigms of American exceptionalism, she focuses instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically and chronologically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate sphere in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism (roughly 1700s to mid-1800s) not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that [https://www.english.upenn.edu/people/amy-kaplan Amy Kaplan&#039;s] 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument against viewing American imperialism as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized and colonizer and how these categories formed. (26-27) Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective to try and answer this historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these issues, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship as a contributing field. The &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical studies of imperialism helped bring these intimate spheres of identity, arguably Stoler&#039;s central methodological point, to the fore. (30) The culmination of these developments is what she proposes as a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the periphery and metropole of empire and how they affect one another internally. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, she focuses on everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for innovative scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> The book centers around this core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) Stoler’s method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how hierarchies of power penetrated intimate settings of family and identity, 3) who received the privilege of producing knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how her methodology may expand into other periods. For example, the first section features [http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/people/dsal007 Damon Salesa&#039;s] &quot;Samoa&#039;s Half-Castes and Some Frontiers of Comparison,&quot; where he argues that the combined presence of multiple imperial powers and Samoan half-castes with mixed ancestry serves as a point of comparison. He states that Samoa was a joint imperial frontier that depended not on large colonial bureaucracies, but instead colonizing individuals that embodied the interests of empire through private and public action on the ground. Half-castes also posed a question of what Salesa calls &quot;strategic intimacy,&quot; further developing Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate by discussing how imperial powers on Samoa categorized and &#039;civilized&#039; this mixed population to meet their political agenda. (72) In the second section, [http://www.history.upenn.edu/people/faculty/kathleen-m-brown Kathleen Brown&#039;s] &quot;Body Work in the Antebellum United States&quot; explores a broader timeline for the roots of America&#039;s imperial character, focusing on how household labor navigated domestic culture both as servants and dwellers of a home space during the antebellum period. Her focus on personal wealth, the physical presence of servants in upper-class white households, and the ever-present hierarchies of power and race helped forge the American concept of civilization and respectability. Finally, in the third section, [https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/people/profile/1285/Alexandra_Minna_Stern Alexandra Stern&#039;s] &quot;An Empire of Tests: Psychometrics and the Paradoxes of Nationalism in the Americas&quot; shows how intelligence tests and racial science in the early twentieth century exemplified Foucauldian bio-power, as these tests generated statistical information on populations and helped highlight difference that then mobilized into concrete structures of dominance. Stern also touches upon Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate self by examining how demographers and scientists traced and justified their judgements on the human &#039;interior&#039; through lenses of psychology or germ theory. Following the main three essay sections, the concluding section features Linda Gordon&#039;s &quot;Internal Colonialism and Gender&quot; as a wrap up to the key ideas presented in the book. She comments on the trajectory of the &quot;internal colonialism&quot; social theory in American academia and its struggles when presented with topics of gender or kinship. (427) However, she also highlights the strengths of Stoler&#039;s model in examinations of individual experiences and relationships within larger structures of colonialism and imperial domination.<br /> These are a few examples that serve to provide a broad overview of the work and show the multidisciplinary approach Stoler calls for in her introduction. However, is this approach successful in its goal of not only encouraging a variety of perspectives but on examining and comparing intimate bodies? Overall, she makes a compelling argument for engaging in a historical exploration of how constructs of race, gender, sexuality, and more developed within the confines of imperial societies both at the top and bottom of social hierarchies. However, even though her commendable historical ethnography garners great praise and followers in the academy, she fails to adhere to some conventions in the field of history. For instance, her interchangeable use of the term &#039;imperial&#039; and &#039;colonial&#039; is confusing and, to further exacerbate the problem, she does little to clarify these in her two essays in the introduction. Her strengths in history lie in her methods, namely the previously mentioned use of comparisons, points of geographic and cultural convergence, and the importance of individual experiences and context in any given colonial situation. Stoler emphasizes the individual historical actor, &quot;what they conceived as equivalent contexts, glossed over as common features or marked off as wholly uncommon ground,” and how this reveals much about the categories developed by the colonizer or colonized. Yet, it is the sheer scope of this project that is the weakest part of the work. She casts a broad geographic net -- perhaps too broad for historians who may prefer a more specific zone of study. &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; is no exception, as the authors within try to cover both the U.S. proper, its peripheries, and other countries and peoples related to American colonial interests during any given period. Also, the chronological scope of the work is immense, with writers tackling everything from early colonial America to the twentieth century. Making points of comparison along such vast distances of time and space are bound to be fraught with issues, especially if these essayists seek to make arguments about continuities in American colonialism. A more centralized theme and period would have benefited this book greatly, perhaps limiting the essays to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century or an examination of a few key territories and the American mainland. However, it nonetheless succeeds in testing the strength of Stoler&#039;s method in a wide variety of imperial settings within the American colonial experience. Stoler’s use of historical comparison and focus on individual experiences is an applicable methodology that enlightens future scholarship and helps revive socio-cultural history as a practical means of exploring the American imperial project and the intimate experience of the individual historical subject caught within those power structures.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3343 2017-10-05T02:20:30Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Laura_Stoler Ann Laura Stoler], &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States and its geographic periphery. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for a revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; (1) Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to studying intimacy (i.e., self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing significant consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; (4) These elements, inspired by the works of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault Michel Foucault] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said Edward Said], ground &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship on colonialism and imperialism produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on sources produced by colonial institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. (55) In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline to compare similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, she focuses instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that [https://www.english.upenn.edu/people/amy-kaplan Amy Kaplan&#039;s] 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument against viewing American imperialism as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories formed. (26-27) To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these issues, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate spheres of race and sexuality, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the fore. (30) The culmination of these developments is what Stoler proposes a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the periphery and metropole of empire. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, Stoler points to everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for innovative scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> The book is framed then around Stoler&#039;s core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) her method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how power hierarchies manifested in intimate settings, 3) who produced knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how Stoler&#039;s methodology may expand in other projects. For example, the first section features [http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/people/dsal007 Damon Salesa&#039;s] &quot;Samoa&#039;s Half-Castes and Some Frontiers of Comparison,&quot; where he argues that the combined presence of multiple imperial powers and of Samoan half-castes with mixed ancestry serves as a point of comparison. Salesa states that Samoa was a joint imperial frontier that depended not on colonial bureaucracies, but instead colonizing individuals that embody the interests of empire through private and public action on the ground. Also, half-castes posed a question of what Salesa calls &quot;strategic intimacy,&quot; further developing Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate by discussing how imperial powers on Samoa categorized and &#039;civilized&#039; this mixed population. (72) In the second section, [http://www.history.upenn.edu/people/faculty/kathleen-m-brown Kathleen Brown&#039;s] &quot;Body Work in the Antebellum United States&quot; explores a broader timeline for the roots of America&#039;s imperial character, as she focuses on how household labor navigated domestic culture both as servants and dwellers of a home space. Her focus on personal wealth, the physical presence of servants in upper-class white households, and the hierarchies of power and race points to the origin of the American concept of civilization and respectability. Finally, in the third section, [https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/people/profile/1285/Alexandra_Minna_Stern Alexandra Stern&#039;s] &quot;An Empire of Tests: Psychometrics and the Paradoxes of Nationalism in the Americas&quot; shows how the intelligence tests and study of races in the early twentieth century exemplify Foucauldian bio-power, as these tests generated statistical information on populations and, at the same time, helped highlight difference in race, ethnicity, gender, and class. Beyond this, Stern also touches upon Stoler&#039;s fixation on the intimate self and how participants and examiners traced the human &#039;interior&#039; through a lens of science, such as psychology or germ theory. Following the essays proper, [https://as.nyu.edu/history/people.linda-gordon.html Linda Gordon&#039;s] &quot;Internal Colonialism and Gender&quot; wraps up the key ideas presented in the book by commenting on the trajectory of the &quot;internal colonialism&quot; social theory in American academia and its struggles when presented with topics of gender or kinship. (427) However, she highlights the strengths of Stoler&#039;s model in examinations of individual experiences and relationships within larger structures of colonialism and imperial domination.<br /> <br /> These examples provide a broad overview of the work and reinforce the multidisciplinary approach Stoler praises in her introduction. However, is this approach successful in its goal of not only encouraging a variety of perspectives but is her focus on examining and comparing intimate bodies plausible? Although her academic background as anthropologist shows in her work, she does make a compelling argument for an intimate historical exploration of how constructs of race, gender, sexuality, and more developed within the confines of imperial societies both at the top and bottom of social hierarchies. However, even though her commendable historical ethnography garners great praise and followers in the academy, she fails to adhere to some of the conventions in the field of history. For instance, her interchangeable use of the term &#039;imperial&#039; and &#039;colonial&#039; is confusing and, to further exacerbate the problem, she does little to clarify these in her two essays. Her strengths in history lie in her approach to interesting historical methods, namely the previously mentioned use of comparisons and the importance of individual experiences and context in any given situation. Stoler emphasizes the historical actor, &quot;what they conceived as equivalent contexts, glossed over as common features or marked off as wholly uncommon ground&quot; reveal much about the categories developed by individuals of any given society, be they the colonized or colonizer. Yet, it is the sheer scope of the projects Stoler and the essayists choose to explore, even within this collection, that is the weakest part of the work. She casts a broad geographic net -- perhaps too broad for historians who may prefer a more specific zone of study. &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; is no exception, for it broadly revolves around the United States, but the authors within cover both the U.S. proper and its periphery in the Americas and Asia. Also, the chronological scope of the work is immense, with writers tackling everything from early colonial America all the way to the twentieth century. Making points of comparison along such vast distances of time are fraught with issues, especially if Stoler and company seek to make arguments about continuities in American colonialism. That said, it is that broad take on American colonialism that is the ultimate weakness of this book. A more centralized theme and period would have benefited this book greatly, perhaps limiting the essays to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century or an examination of a few key territories and the American mainland. However, it nonetheless succeeds in part in testing the strength of Stoler&#039;s method in a wide variety of imperial settings within the American colonial experience. In particular, Stoler&#039;s use of historical comparison and focus on individual experiences is an applicable methodology that serves to further enlighten future scholarship on the topic of colonialism and imperialism overall.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3342 2017-10-05T02:03:53Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Laura_Stoler Ann Laura Stoler], &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States and its geographic periphery. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for a revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; (1) Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to studying intimacy (i.e., self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing significant consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; (4) These elements, inspired by the works of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault Michel Foucault] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said Edward Said], ground &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship on colonialism and imperialism produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on sources produced by colonial institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. (55) In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline to compare similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, she focuses instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that [https://www.english.upenn.edu/people/amy-kaplan Amy Kaplan&#039;s] 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument against viewing American imperialism as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories formed. (26-27) To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these issues, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate spheres of race and sexuality, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the fore. (30) The culmination of these developments is what Stoler proposes a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the periphery and metropole of empire. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, Stoler points to everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for innovative scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> The book is framed then around Stoler&#039;s core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) her method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how power hierarchies manifested in intimate settings, 3) who produced knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how Stoler&#039;s methodology may expand in other projects. For example, the first section features [http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/people/dsal007 Damon Salesa&#039;s] &quot;Samoa&#039;s Half-Castes and Some Frontiers of Comparison,&quot; where he argues that the combined presence of multiple imperial powers and of Samoan half-castes with mixed ancestry serves as a point of comparison. Salesa states that Samoa was a joint imperial frontier that depended not on colonial bureaucracies, but instead individuals that &quot;manifested &#039;the frontier&#039; in its larger sense.&quot; Furthermore, half-castes posed a question of &quot;strategic intimacy,&quot; as Salesa develops Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate by discussing how imperial powers on Samoa categorized and &#039;civilized&#039; this mixed population. In the second section, [http://www.history.upenn.edu/people/faculty/kathleen-m-brown Kathleen Brown&#039;s] &quot;Body Work in the Antebellum United States&quot; explores a broader timeline for the roots of America&#039;s imperial character, as she focuses on how household labor navigated domestic culture both as servants and dwellers of a home space. Her focus on personal wealth, the physical presence of servants in upper-class white households, and the hierarchies of power and race points to the origin of the American concept of civilization and respectability. Finally, in the third section, [https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/people/profile/1285/Alexandra_Minna_Stern Alexandra Stern&#039;s] &quot;An Empire of Tests: Psychometrics and the Paradoxes of Nationalism in the Americas&quot; shows how the intelligence tests and study of races in the early twentieth century exemplify Foucauldian bio-power, as these tests generated statistical information on populations and, at the same time, helped highlight difference in race, ethnicity, gender, and class. Beyond this, Stern also touches upon Stoler&#039;s fixation on the intimate self and how participants and examiners traced the human &quot;interior&quot; through a lens of science, such as psychology or germ theory. Following the essays proper, [https://as.nyu.edu/history/people.linda-gordon.html Linda Gordon&#039;s] &quot;Internal Colonialism and Gender&quot; wraps up the key ideas presented in the book by commenting on the trajectory of the &quot;internal colonialism&quot; social theory in American academia and its struggles when presented with topics of gender or kinship. However, she highlights the strengths of Stoler&#039;s model in examinations of individual experiences and relationships within larger structures of colonialism and imperial domination.<br /> <br /> These examples provide a broad overview of the work and reinforce the multidisciplinary approach Stoler praises in her introduction. However, is this approach successful in its goal of not only encouraging a variety of perspectives but is her focus on examining and comparing intimate bodies plausible? Although her academic background as anthropologist shows in her work, she does make a compelling argument for an intimate historical exploration of how constructs of race, gender, sexuality, and more developed within the confines of imperial societies both at the top and bottom of social hierarchies. However, even though her commendable historical ethnography garners great praise and followers in the academy, she fails to adhere to some of the conventions in the field of history. For instance, her interchangeable use of the term &#039;imperial&#039; and &#039;colonial&#039; is confusing and, to further exacerbate the problem, she does little to clarify these in her two essays. Her strengths in history lie in her approach to interesting historical methods, namely the previously mentioned use of comparisons and the importance of individual experiences and context in any given situation. Stoler emphasizes the historical actor, &quot;what they conceived as equivalent contexts, glossed over as common features or marked off as wholly uncommon ground&quot; reveal much about the categories developed by individuals of any given society, be they the colonized or colonizer. Furthermore, she points to contradictions in historical categories as proof of &quot;those uneven circuits in which knowledge was produced,&quot; highlighting the shifting identities and hierarchies of colonial projects again. Yet, it is the sheer scope of the projects Stoler and the essayists choose to explore, even within this collection, that is the weakest part of the work. She casts a broad geographic net -- perhaps too broad for historians who may prefer a more specific zone of study. &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; is no exception, for it broadly revolves around the United States, but the authors within cover both the U.S. proper and its periphery in the Americas and Asia. Also, the chronological scope of the work is immense, with writers tackling everything from early colonial America all the way to the twentieth century. Making points of comparison along such vast distances of time are fraught with issues, especially if Stoler and company seek to make arguments about continuities in American colonialism. That said, it is that broad take on American colonialism that is the ultimate weakness of this book. A more centralized theme and period would have benefited this book greatly, perhaps limiting the essays to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century or an examination of a few key territories and the American mainland. However, it nonetheless succeeds in part in testing the strength of Stoler&#039;s method in a wide variety of imperial settings within the American colonial experience. In particular, Stoler&#039;s use of historical comparison and focus on individual experiences is an applicable methodology that serves to further enlighten future scholarship on the topic of colonialism and imperialism overall. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3326 2017-10-05T00:16:36Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Laura_Stoler Ann Laura Stoler], &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States and its geographic periphery. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for a revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e., self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing significant consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements inspired the works of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault Michel Foucault] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said Edward Said], ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline to compare similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, she focuses instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that [https://www.english.upenn.edu/people/amy-kaplan Amy Kaplan&#039;s] 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument against viewing American imperialism as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these issues, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate spheres of race and sexuality, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the fore. The culmination of these developments is what Stoler proposes a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the &quot;interior frontiers&quot; of the state and empire. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, Stoler points to everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for innovative scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> The book is framed then around Stoler&#039;s core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) her method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how power hierarchies manifested in intimate settings, 3) who produced knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how Stoler&#039;s methodology may expand in other projects. For example, the first section features [http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/people/dsal007 Damon Salesa&#039;s] &quot;Samoa&#039;s Half-Castes and Some Frontiers of Comparison,&quot; where he argues that the combined presence of multiple imperial powers and of Samoan half-castes with mixed ancestry serves as a point of comparison. Salesa states that Samoa was a joint imperial frontier that depended not on colonial bureaucracies, but instead individuals that &quot;manifested &#039;the frontier&#039; in its larger sense.&quot; Furthermore, half-castes posed a question of &quot;strategic intimacy,&quot; as Salesa develops Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate by discussing how imperial powers on Samoa categorized and &#039;civilized&#039; this mixed population. In the second section, [http://www.history.upenn.edu/people/faculty/kathleen-m-brown Kathleen Brown&#039;s] &quot;Body Work in the Antebellum United States&quot; explores a broader timeline for the roots of America&#039;s imperial character, as she focuses on how household labor navigated domestic culture both as servants and dwellers of a home space. Her focus on personal wealth, the physical presence of servants in upper-class white households, and the hierarchies of power and race points to the origin of the American concept of civilization and respectability. Finally, in the third section, [https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/people/profile/1285/Alexandra_Minna_Stern Alexandra Stern&#039;s] &quot;An Empire of Tests: Psychometrics and the Paradoxes of Nationalism in the Americas&quot; shows how the intelligence tests and study of races in the early twentieth century exemplify Foucauldian bio-power, as these tests generated statistical information on populations and, at the same time, helped highlight difference in race, ethnicity, gender, and class. Beyond this, Stern also touches upon Stoler&#039;s fixation on the intimate self and how participants and examiners traced the human &quot;interior&quot; through a lens of science, such as psychology or germ theory. Following the essays proper, [https://as.nyu.edu/history/people.linda-gordon.html Linda Gordon&#039;s] &quot;Internal Colonialism and Gender&quot; wraps up the key ideas presented in the book by commenting on the trajectory of the &quot;internal colonialism&quot; social theory in American academia and its struggles when presented with topics of gender or kinship. However, she highlights the strengths of Stoler&#039;s model in examinations of individual experiences and relationships within larger structures of colonialism and imperial domination.<br /> <br /> These examples provide a broad overview of the work and reinforce the multidisciplinary approach Stoler praises in her introduction. However, is this approach successful in its goal of not only encouraging a variety of perspectives but is her focus on examining and comparing intimate bodies plausible? Although her academic background as anthropologist shows in her work, she does make a compelling argument for an intimate historical exploration of how constructs of race, gender, sexuality, and more developed within the confines of imperial societies both at the top and bottom of social hierarchies. However, even though her commendable historical ethnography garners great praise and followers in the academy, she fails to adhere to some of the conventions in the field of history. For instance, her interchangeable use of the term &#039;imperial&#039; and &#039;colonial&#039; is confusing and, to further exacerbate the problem, she does little to clarify these in her two essays. Her strengths in history lie in her approach to interesting historical methods, namely the previously mentioned use of comparisons and the importance of individual experiences and context in any given situation. Stoler emphasizes the historical actor, &quot;what they conceived as equivalent contexts, glossed over as common features or marked off as wholly uncommon ground&quot; reveal much about the categories developed by individuals of any given society, be they the colonized or colonizer. Furthermore, she points to contradictions in historical categories as proof of &quot;those uneven circuits in which knowledge was produced,&quot; highlighting the shifting identities and hierarchies of colonial projects again. Yet, it is the sheer scope of the projects Stoler and the essayists choose to explore, even within this collection, that is the weakest part of the work. She casts a broad geographic net -- perhaps too broad for historians who may prefer a more specific zone of study. &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; is no exception, for it broadly revolves around the United States, but the authors within cover both the U.S. proper and its periphery in the Americas and Asia. Also, the chronological scope of the work is immense, with writers tackling everything from early colonial America all the way to the twentieth century. Making points of comparison along such vast distances of time are fraught with issues, especially if Stoler and company seek to make arguments about continuities in American colonialism. That said, it is that broad take on American colonialism that is the ultimate weakness of this book. A more centralized theme and period would have benefited this book greatly, perhaps limiting the essays to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century or an examination of a few key territories and the American mainland. However, it nonetheless succeeds in part in testing the strength of Stoler&#039;s method in a wide variety of imperial settings within the American colonial experience. In particular, Stoler&#039;s use of historical comparison and focus on individual experiences is an applicable methodology that serves to further enlighten future scholarship on the topic of colonialism and imperialism overall. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3288 2017-10-04T02:10:35Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States and its geographic periphery. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for a revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e., self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing significant consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline to compare similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, she focuses instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that Amy Kaplan&#039;s 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument against viewing American imperialism as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these issues, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate spheres of race and sexuality, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the fore. The culmination of these developments is what Stoler proposes a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the &quot;interior frontiers&quot; of the state and empire. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, Stoler points to everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for innovative scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> The book is framed then around Stoler&#039;s core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) her method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how power hierarchies manifested in intimate settings, 3) who produced knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how Stoler&#039;s methodology may expand in other projects. For example, the first section features Damon Salesa&#039;s &quot;Samoa&#039;s Half-Castes and Some Frontiers of Comparison,&quot; where he argues that the combined presence of multiple imperial powers and of Samoan half-castes with mixed ancestry serves as a point of comparison. Salesa states that Samoa was a joint imperial frontier that depended not on colonial bureaucracies, but instead individuals that &quot;manifested &#039;the frontier&#039; in its larger sense.&quot; Furthermore, half-castes posed a question of &quot;strategic intimacy,&quot; as Salesa develops Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate by discussing how imperial powers on Samoa categorized and &#039;civilized&#039; this mixed population. In the second section, Kathleen Brown&#039;s &quot;Body Work in the Antebellum United States&quot; explores a broader timeline for the roots of America&#039;s imperial character, as she focuses on how household labor navigated domestic culture both as servants and dwellers of a home space. Her focus on personal wealth, the physical presence of servants in upper-class white households, and the hierarchies of power and race points to the origin of the American concept of civilization and respectability. Finally, in the third section, Alexandra Stern&#039;s &quot;An Empire of Tests: Psychometrics and the Paradoxes of Nationalism in the Americas&quot; shows how the intelligence tests and study of races in the early twentieth century exemplify Foucauldian bio-power, as these tests generated statistical information on populations and, at the same time, helped highlight difference in race, ethnicity, gender, and class. Beyond that, Stern also touches upon Stoler&#039;s fixation on the intimate self and how participants and examiners traced the human &quot;interior&quot; through a lens of science, such as psychology or germ theory. After the essays proper, Linda Gordon&#039;s &quot;Internal Colonialism and Gender&quot; wraps up the key ideas presented in the book thus far, commenting on the trajectory of the &quot;internal colonialism&quot; social theory in American academia and the struggles the concept faces when presented with gender or kinship in depth. However, she highlights the strengths of Stoler&#039;s model in examinations of individual experiences and relationships within larger structures of colonialism and imperial domination.<br /> <br /> These examples provide a broad overview of the work and reinforce the multidisciplinary approach Stoler praises in her introduction. However, is this approach successful in its goal of not only encouraging a variety of perspectives but is her focus on examining and comparing intimate bodies plausible? Although her academic background as anthropologist shows in her work, she does make a compelling argument for an intimate historical exploration of how constructs of race, gender, sexuality, and more developed within the confines of imperial societies both at the top and bottom of social hierarchies. However, even though her commendable historical ethnography garners great praise and followers in the academy, she fails to adhere to some of the conventions in the field of history. For instance, her interchangeable use of the term &#039;imperial&#039; and &#039;colonial&#039; is confusing and, to further exacerbate the problem, she does little to clarify these in her two essays. Her strengths in history lie in her approach to interesting historical methods, namely the previously mentioned use of comparisons and the importance of individual experiences and context in any given situation. Stoler emphasizes the historical actor, &quot;what they conceived as equivalent contexts, glossed over as common features or marked off as wholly uncommon ground&quot; reveal much about the categories developed by individuals of any given society, be they the colonized or colonizer. Furthermore, she points to contradictions in historical categories as proof of &quot;those uneven circuits in which knowledge was produced,&quot; highlighting the shifting identities and hierarchies of colonial projects again. Yet, it is the sheer scope of the projects Stoler and the essayists choose to explore, even within this collection, that is the weakest part of the work. She casts a broad geographic net -- perhaps too broad for historians who may prefer a more specific zone of study. &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; is no exception, for it broadly revolves around the United States, but the authors within cover both the U.S. proper and its periphery in the Americas and Asia. Also, the chronological scope of the work is immense, with writers tackling everything from early colonial America all the way to the twentieth century. Making points of comparison along such vast distances of time are fraught with issues, especially if Stoler and company seek to make arguments about continuities in American colonialism. That said, it is that broad take on American colonialism that is the ultimate weakness of this book. A more centralized theme and period would have benefited this book greatly, perhaps limiting the essays to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century or an examination of a few key territories and the American mainland. However, it nonetheless succeeds in part in testing the strength of Stoler&#039;s method in a wide variety of imperial settings within the American colonial experience. In particular, Stoler&#039;s use of historical comparison and focus on individual experiences is an applicable methodology that serves to further enlighten future scholarship on the topic of colonialism and imperialism overall. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3287 2017-10-04T00:02:16Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States and its geographic periphery. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for a revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e., self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing significant consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline to compare similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, she focuses instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that Amy Kaplan&#039;s 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument against viewing American imperialism as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these issues, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate spheres of race and sexuality, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the fore. The culmination of these developments is what Stoler proposes a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the &quot;interior frontiers&quot; of the state and empire. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, Stoler points to everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for innovative scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> The book is framed then around Stoler&#039;s core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) her method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how power hierarchies manifested in intimate settings, 3) who produced knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how Stoler&#039;s methodology may expand in other projects. For example, the first section features Damon Salesa&#039;s &quot;Samoa&#039;s Half-Castes and Some Frontiers of Comparison,&quot; where he argues that the combined presence of multiple imperial powers and of Samoan half-castes with mixed ancestry serves as a point of comparison. Salesa states that Samoa was a joint imperial frontier that depended not on colonial bureaucracies, but instead individuals that &quot;manifested &#039;the frontier&#039; in its larger sense.&quot; Furthermore, half-castes posed a question of &quot;strategic intimacy,&quot; as Salesa develops Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate by discussing how imperial powers on Samoa categorized and &#039;civilized&#039; this mixed population. In the second section, Kathleen Brown&#039;s &quot;Body Work in the Antebellum United States&quot; explores a broader timeline for the roots of America&#039;s imperial character, as she focuses on how household labor navigated domestic culture both as servants and dwellers of a home space. Her focus on personal wealth, the physical presence of servants in upper-class white households, and the hierarchies of power and race points to the origin of the American concept of civilization and respectability. Finally, in the third section, Alexandra Stern&#039;s &quot;An Empire of Tests: Psychometrics and the Paradoxes of Nationalism in the Americas&quot; shows how the intelligence tests and study of races in the early twentieth century exemplify Foucauldian bio-power, as these tests generated statistical information on populations and, at the same time, helped highlight difference in race, ethnicity, gender, and class. Beyond that, Stern also touches upon Stoler&#039;s fixation on the intimate self and how participants and examiners traced the human &quot;interior&quot; through a lens of science, such as psychology or germ theory. After the essays proper, Linda Gordon&#039;s &quot;Internal Colonialism and Gender&quot; wraps up the key ideas presented in the book thus far, commenting on the trajectory of the &quot;internal colonialism&quot; social theory in American academia and the struggles the concept faces when presented with gender or kinship in depth. However, she highlights the strengths of Stoler&#039;s model in examinations of individual experiences and relationships within larger structures of colonialism and imperial domination.<br /> <br /> These examples provide a broad overview of the work and reinforce the multidisciplinary approach Stoler praises in her introduction. However, is this approach successful in its goal of not only encouraging a variety of perspectives but is her focus on examining and comparing intimate bodies plausible? Although her academic background as anthropologist shows in her work, she does make a compelling argument for an intimate historical exploration of how constructs of race, gender, sexuality, and more developed within the confines of imperial societies both at the top and bottom of social hierarchies. However, even though her commendable historical ethnography garners great praise and followers in the academy, she fails to adhere to some of the conventions in the field of history. For instance, her interchangeable use of the term &#039;imperial&#039; and &#039;colonial&#039; is confusing and, to further exacerbate the problem, she does little to clarify these in her two essays. Her strengths in history lie in her approach to interesting historical methods, namely the previously mentioned use of comparisons and the importance of individual experiences and context in any given situation. Stoler emphasizes the historical actor, &quot;what they conceived as equivalent contexts, glossed over as common features or marked off as wholly uncommon ground&quot; reveal much about the categories developed by individuals of any given society, be they the colonized or colonizer. Furthermore, she points to contradictions in historical categories as proof of &quot;those uneven circuits in which knowledge was produced,&quot; highlighting the shifting identities and hierarchies of colonial projects again. Yet, it is the sheer scope of the projects Stoler and the essayists choose to explore, even within this collection, that is the weakest part of the work. She casts a broad geographic net -- perhaps too broad for historians who may prefer a more specific zone of study. &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; is no exception, for it broadly revolves around the United States, but the authors within cover both the U.S. proper and its periphery in the Americas and Asia. Also, the chronological scope of the work is immense, with writers tackling everything from early colonial America all the way to the twentieth century. Making points of comparison along such vast distances of time are fraught with issues, especially if Stoler and company seek to make arguments about continuities in American colonialism. That said, it is that broad take on American colonialism that is the ultimate weakness of this book. A more centralized theme and period would have benefited this book greatly, perhaps limiting the essays to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century or an examination of a few key territories and the American mainland. However, it nonetheless succeeds in part in testing the strength of Stoler&#039;s method in a wide variety of imperial settings within the American colonial experience. In particular, Stoler&#039;s use of historical comparison and focus on individual experiences is an applicable methodology that serves to further enlighten future scholarship on the topic of colonialism and imperialism overall. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3286 2017-10-03T23:41:13Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline for the purpose of comparing similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, her focus rests instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that Amy Kaplan&#039;s 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument that American imperialism has been viewed as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories were formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these questions, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate spheres of race and sexuality, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the fore. The culmination of these developments are what Stoler proposes as a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the &quot;interior frontiers&quot; of the state and empire. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, Stoler points to everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for novel scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> The book is framed then around Stoler&#039;s core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) her method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how power hierarchies manifested in intimate settings, 3) who produced knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how Stoler&#039;s methodology may be expanded upon in other projects. For example, the first section features Damon Salesa&#039;s &quot;Samoa&#039;s Half-Castes and Some Frontiers of Comparison,&quot; where he argues that the combined presence of multiple imperial powers and of Samoan half-castes with mixed ancestry serves as a point of comparison. Salesa states that Samoa was a joint imperial frontier that depended not on colonial bureaucracies, but instead individuals that &quot;manifested &#039;the frontier&#039; in its larger sense.&quot; Furthermore, half-castes posed a question of &quot;strategic intimacy,&quot; as Salesa develops Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate by discussing how imperial powers on Samoa categorized and &#039;civilized&#039; this mixed population. In the second section, Kathleen Brown&#039;s &quot;Body Work in the Antebellum United States&quot; explores a broader timeline for the roots of America&#039;s imperial character, as she focuses on how household labor navigated domestic culture both as servants and dwellers of a home space. Her focus on personal wealth, the physical presence of servants in upper-class white households, and the hierarchies of power and race points to the origin of the American concept of civilization and respectability. Finally, in the third section, Alexandra Stern&#039;s &quot;An Empire of Tests: Psychometrics and the Paradoxes of Nationalism in the Americas&quot; shows how the intelligence tests and study of races in the early twentieth century exemplify Foucauldian bio-power, as these tests generated statistical information on populations and, at the same time, helped highlight difference in race, ethnicity, gender, and class. Beyond that, Stern also touches upon Stoler&#039;s fixation on the intimate self and how participants and examiners traced the human &quot;interior&quot; through a lens of science, such as psychology or germ theory. After the essays proper, Linda Gordon&#039;s &quot;Internal Colonialism and Gender&quot; wraps up the key ideas presented in the book thus far, commenting on the trajectory of the &quot;internal colonialism&quot; social theory in American academia and the struggles the concept faces when presented with gender or kinship in depth. However, she highlights the strengths of Stoler&#039;s model in examinations of individual experiences and relationships within larger structures of colonialism and imperial domination.<br /> <br /> These examples provide a broad overview of the work and reinforce the multidisciplinary approach Stoler praises in her introduction. Although her academic background as anthropologist shows in her work, she nonetheless makes a compelling argument for an intimate exploration of how constructs of race, gender, sexuality, and more developed within the confines of imperial societies both at the top and bottom of social hierarchies. However, even though her commendable historical ethnography garners great praise and followers in the academy, she fails to adhere to some of the conventions in the field of history. For instance, her interchangeable use of the terms &#039;imperial&#039; and &#039;colonial&#039; can be confusing and, to further exacerbate the problem, she does little to clarify these in her two essays. Her strengths in history lie in her approach to interesting historical methods, namely the previously mentioned use of comparisons and the importance of individual experiences and context in any given situation. Stoler emphasizes the historical actor, &quot;what they conceived as equivalent contexts, glossed over as common features or marked off as wholly uncommon ground&quot; reveal much about the categories developed by individuals of any given society, be they the colonized or colonizer. Furthermore, she points to contradictions in historical categories as proof of &quot;those uneven circuits in which knowledge was produced,&quot; highlighting again the shifting identities and hierarchies of colonial projects. Yet, it is the scope of her work that is the most confusing. She casts a broad geographic net -- perhaps too broad for historians who may prefer a more specialized zone of study. &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; is no exception, for the work generally revolves around the United States, but the authors within cover both the U.S. proper and its periphery in the Americas and Asia. In addition, the chronological scope of the work is immense, with writers tackling everything from early colonial America all the way to the twentieth century. Making points of comparison along such vast distances of time is fraught with issues, especially if Stoler and company seek to make arguments about continuities in American colonialism. That said, it is that broad take on American colonialism that is the ultimate weakness of this book. A more centralized theme and time period would have benefited this book greatly, but it nonetheless succeeds in part in testing the strength of Stoler&#039;s method in a wide variety of imperial settings within the American colonial experience. In particular, Stoler&#039;s use of historical comparison and focus on individual experiences is an applicable methodology that serves to further enlighten future scholarship on the topic of colonialism and imperialism overall. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3285 2017-10-03T23:37:19Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline for the purpose of comparing similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, her focus rests instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that Amy Kaplan&#039;s 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument that American imperialism has been viewed as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories were formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these questions, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate spheres of race and sexuality, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the fore. The culmination of these developments are what Stoler proposes as a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the &quot;interior frontiers&quot; of the state and empire. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, Stoler points to everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for novel scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> The book is framed then around Stoler&#039;s core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) her method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how power hierarchies manifested in intimate settings, 3) who produced knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how Stoler&#039;s methodology may be expanded upon in other projects. For example, the first section features Damon Salesa&#039;s &quot;Samoa&#039;s Half-Castes and Some Frontiers of Comparison,&quot; where he argues that the combined presence of multiple imperial powers and of Samoan half-castes with mixed ancestry serves as a point of comparison. Salesa states that Samoa was a joint imperial frontier that depended not on colonial bureaucracies, but instead individuals that &quot;manifested &#039;the frontier&#039; in its larger sense.&quot; Furthermore, half-castes posed a question of &quot;strategic intimacy,&quot; as Salesa develops Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate by discussing how imperial powers on Samoa categorized and &#039;civilized&#039; this mixed population. In the second section, Kathleen Brown&#039;s &quot;Body Work in the Antebellum United States&quot; explores a broader timeline for the roots of America&#039;s imperial character, as she focuses on how household labor navigated domestic culture both as servants and dwellers of a home space. Her focus on personal wealth, the physical presence of servants in upper-class white households, and the hierarchies of power and race points to the origin of the American concept of civilization and respectability. Finally, in the third section, Alexandra Stern&#039;s &quot;An Empire of Tests: Psychometrics and the Paradoxes of Nationalism in the Americas&quot; shows how the intelligence tests and study of races in the early twentieth century exemplify Foucauldian bio-power, as these tests generated statistical information on populations and, at the same time, helped highlight difference in race, ethnicity, gender, and class. Beyond that, Stern also touches upon Stoler&#039;s fixation on the intimate self and how participants and examiners traced the human &quot;interior&quot; through a lens of science, such as psychology or germ theory. After the essays proper, Linda Gordon&#039;s &quot;Internal Colonialism and Gender&quot; wraps up the key ideas presented in the book thus far, commenting on the trajectory of the &quot;internal colonialism&quot; social theory in American academia and the struggles the concept faces when presented with gender or kinship in depth. However, she highlights the strengths of Stoler&#039;s model in examinations of individual experiences and relationships within larger structures of colonialism and imperial domination.<br /> <br /> These examples provide a broad overview of the work and reinforce the multidisciplinary approach Stoler praises in her introduction. Although her academic background as anthropologist shows in her work, she nonetheless makes a compelling argument for an intimate exploration of how constructs of race, gender, sexuality, and more developed within the confines of imperial societies both at the top and bottom of social hierarchies. However, even though her commendable historical ethnography garners great praise and followers in the academy, she fails to adhere to some of the conventions in the field of history. For instance, her interchangeable use of the terms &#039;imperial&#039; and &#039;colonial&#039; can be confusing and, to further exacerbate the problem, she does little to clarify these in her two essays. Her strengths in history lie in her approach to interesting historical methods, namely the previously mentioned use of comparisons and the importance of individual experiences and context in any given situation. Stoler emphasizes the historical actor, &quot;what they conceived as equivalent contexts, glossed over as common features or marked off as wholly uncommon ground&quot; reveal much about the categories developed by individuals of any given society, be they the colonized or colonizer. Furthermore, she points to contradictions in historical categories as proof of &quot;those uneven circuits in which knowledge was produced,&quot; highlighting again the shifting identities and hierarchies of colonial projects. Yet, it is the scope of her work that is the most confusing. She casts a broad geographic net -- perhaps too broad for historians who may prefer a more specialized zone of study. &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; is no exception, for the work may generally revolve around the United States, but the authors within cover both the U.S. proper and its periphery in the Americas and Asia. That said, this broad scope is generally a weakness of the collection. A more centralized theme and time period would have benefited this book greatly, but it nonetheless succeeds in testing the strength of Stoler&#039;s method in a wide variety of imperial settings within the American colonial experience. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3284 2017-10-03T22:54:43Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline for the purpose of comparing similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, her focus rests instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that Amy Kaplan&#039;s 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument that American imperialism has been viewed as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories were formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these questions, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate spheres of race and sexuality, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the fore. The culmination of these developments are what Stoler proposes as a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the &quot;interior frontiers&quot; of the state and empire. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, Stoler points to everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for novel scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> The book is framed then around Stoler&#039;s core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) her method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how power hierarchies manifested in intimate settings, 3) who produced knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how Stoler&#039;s methodology may be expanded upon in other projects. For example, the first section features Damon Salesa&#039;s &quot;Samoa&#039;s Half-Castes and Some Frontiers of Comparison,&quot; where he argues that the combined presence of multiple imperial powers and of Samoan half-castes with mixed ancestry serves as a point of comparison. Salesa states that Samoa was a joint imperial frontier that depended not on colonial bureaucracies, but instead individuals that &quot;manifested &#039;the frontier&#039; in its larger sense.&quot; Furthermore, half-castes posed a question of &quot;strategic intimacy,&quot; as Salesa develops Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate by discussing how imperial powers on Samoa categorized and &#039;civilized&#039; this mixed population. In the second section, Kathleen Brown&#039;s &quot;Body Work in the Antebellum United States&quot; explores a broader timeline for the roots of America&#039;s imperial character, as she focuses on how household labor navigated domestic culture both as servants and dwellers of a home space. Her focus on personal wealth, the physical presence of servants in upper-class white households, and the hierarchies of power and race points to the origin of the American concept of civilization and respectability. Finally, in the third section, Alexandra Stern&#039;s &quot;An Empire of Tests: Psychometrics and the Paradoxes of Nationalism in the Americas&quot; shows how the intelligence tests and study of races in the early twentieth century exemplify Foucauldian bio-power, as these tests generated statistical information on populations and, at the same time, helped highlight difference in race, ethnicity, gender, and class. Beyond that, Stern also touches upon Stoler&#039;s fixation on the intimate self and how participants and examiners traced the human &quot;interior&quot; through a lens of science, such as psychology or germ theory. After the essays proper, Linda Gordon&#039;s &quot;Internal Colonialism and Gender&quot; wraps up the key ideas presented in the book thus far, commenting on the trajectory of the &quot;internal colonialism&quot; social theory in American academia and the struggles the concept faces when presented with gender or kinship in depth. However, she highlights the strengths of Stoler&#039;s model in examinations of individual experiences and relationships within larger structures of colonialism and imperial domination.<br /> <br /> These examples from the three main sections provide an overall picture of the broad scholarship engaged with these ideas of empire and the intimate.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3283 2017-10-03T22:42:01Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline for the purpose of comparing similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, her focus rests instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that Amy Kaplan&#039;s 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument that American imperialism has been viewed as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories were formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these questions, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate spheres of race and sexuality, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the fore. The culmination of these developments are what Stoler proposes as a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the &quot;interior frontiers&quot; of the state and empire. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, Stoler points to everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for novel scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> The book is framed then around Stoler&#039;s core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) her method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how power hierarchies manifested in intimate settings, 3) who produced knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how Stoler&#039;s methodology may be expanded upon in other projects. For example, the first section features Damon Salesa&#039;s &quot;Samoa&#039;s Half-Castes and Some Frontiers of Comparison,&quot; where he argues that the combined presence of multiple imperial powers and of Samoan half-castes with mixed ancestry serves as a point of comparison. Salesa states that Samoa was a joint imperial frontier that depended not on colonial bureaucracies, but instead individuals that &quot;manifested &#039;the frontier&#039; in its larger sense.&quot; Furthermore, half-castes posed a question of &quot;strategic intimacy,&quot; as Salesa develops Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate by discussing how imperial powers on Samoa categorized and &#039;civilized&#039; this mixed population. In the second section, Kathleen Brown&#039;s &quot;Body Work in the Antebellum United States&quot; explores a broader timeline for the roots of America&#039;s imperial character, as she focuses on how household labor navigated domestic culture both as servants and dwellers of a home space. Her focus on personal wealth, the physical presence of servants in upper-class white households, and the hierarchies of power and race points to the origin of the American concept of civilization and respectability. In the third and final section, Alexandra Stern&#039;s &quot;An Empire of Tests: Psychometrics and the Paradoxes of Nationalism in the Americas&quot; shows how the intelligence tests and study of races in the early twentieth century exemplify Foucauldian bio-power, as these tests generated statistical information on populations and, at the same time, helped highlight difference in race, ethnicity, gender, and class. Beyond that, Stern also touches upon Stoler&#039;s fixation on the intimate self and how participants and examiners traced the human &quot;interior&quot; through a lens of science, such as psychology or germ theory.<br /> <br /> These examples from the three main sections provide an overall picture of the broad scholarship engaged with these ideas of empire and the intimate.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3282 2017-10-03T22:32:14Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline for the purpose of comparing similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, her focus rests instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that Amy Kaplan&#039;s 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument that American imperialism has been viewed as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories were formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these questions, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate spheres of race and sexuality, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the fore. The culmination of these developments are what Stoler proposes as a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the &quot;interior frontiers&quot; of the state and empire. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, Stoler points to everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for novel scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> The book is framed then around Stoler&#039;s core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) her method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how power hierarchies manifested in intimate settings, 3) who produced knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how Stoler&#039;s methodology may be expanded upon in other projects. For example, the first section features Damon Salesa&#039;s &quot;Samoa&#039;s Half-Castes and Some Frontiers of Comparison,&quot; where he argues that the combined presence of multiple imperial powers and of Samoan half-castes with mixed ancestry serves as a point of comparison. Salesa states that Samoa was a joint imperial frontier that depended not on colonial bureaucracies, but instead individuals that &quot;manifested &#039;the frontier&#039; in its larger sense.&quot; Furthermore, half-castes posed a question of &quot;strategic intimacy,&quot; as Salesa develops Stoler&#039;s concept of the intimate by discussing how imperial powers on Samoa categorized and &#039;civilized&#039; this mixed population. In the second section, Kathleen Brown&#039;s &quot;Body Work in the Antebellum United States&quot; explores a broader timeline for the roots of America&#039;s imperial character, as she focuses on how household labor navigated domestic culture both as servants and dwellers of a home space. Her focus on personal wealth, the physical presence of servants in upper-class white households, and the hierarchies of power and race points to the origin of the American concept of civilization and respectability. In the third and final section, <br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3281 2017-10-03T21:59:24Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline for the purpose of comparing similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, her focus rests instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that Amy Kaplan&#039;s 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument that American imperialism has been viewed as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories were formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these questions, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate spheres of race and sexuality, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the fore. The culmination of these developments are what Stoler proposes as a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the &quot;interior frontiers&quot; of the state and empire. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, Stoler points to everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for novel scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> <br /> The book is framed then around Stoler&#039;s core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) her method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how power hierarchies manifested in intimate settings, 3) who produced knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how Stoler&#039;s methodology may be expanded upon in other projects. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3280 2017-10-03T21:59:16Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline for the purpose of comparing similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, her focus rests instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that Amy Kaplan&#039;s 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument that American imperialism has been viewed as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories were formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these questions, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate spheres of race and sexuality, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the fore. The culmination of these developments are what Stoler proposes as a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the &quot;interior frontiers&quot; of the state and empire. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, Stoler points to everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for novel scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> The book is framed then around Stoler&#039;s core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) her method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how power hierarchies manifested in intimate settings, 3) who produced knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how Stoler&#039;s methodology may be expanded upon in other projects. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3279 2017-10-03T21:59:04Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline for the purpose of comparing similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, her focus rests instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that Amy Kaplan&#039;s 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument that American imperialism has been viewed as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories were formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these questions, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate spheres of race and sexuality, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the fore. The culmination of these developments are what Stoler proposes as a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the &quot;interior frontiers&quot; of the state and empire. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, Stoler points to everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for novel scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> The book is framed then around Stoler&#039;s core thesis, with three sections focusing on 1) her method of comparison and points of convergence along American colonial frontiers, 2) how power hierarchies manifested in intimate settings, 3) who produced knowledge within an imperial framework, and 4) a final section that provides commentary on how Stoler&#039;s methodology may be expanded upon in other projects. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3253 2017-10-02T23:08:49Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline for the purpose of comparing similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, her focus rests instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that Amy Kaplan&#039;s 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument that American imperialism has been viewed as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories were formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these questions, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate spheres of race and sexuality, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the fore. The culmination of these developments are what Stoler proposes as a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the &quot;interior frontiers&quot; of the state and empire. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, Stoler points to everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as a promising site for novel scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> &#039;&#039;Still editing.&#039;&#039;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3252 2017-10-02T23:00:25Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline for the purpose of comparing similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, her focus rests instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that Amy Kaplan&#039;s 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument that American imperialism has been viewed as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories were formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these questions, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate spheres of race and sexuality, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the fore. The culmination of these developments are what Stoler proposes as a new set of strategies, ones that focus on the &quot;interior frontiers&quot; of the state and empire. In the vein of Foucault&#039;s theories on hegemony and bio-power, Stoler points to everyday domination both at the top and bottom of imperial hierarchies as the site for novel scholarship on American imperialism.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3251 2017-10-02T22:03:54Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline for the purpose of comparing similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, her focus rests instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that Amy Kaplan&#039;s 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument that American imperialism has been viewed as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories were formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these questions, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate spheres of race and sexuality, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the fore.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3250 2017-10-02T22:00:39Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline for the purpose of comparing similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, her focus rests instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that Amy Kaplan&#039;s 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument that American imperialism has been viewed as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories were formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these questions, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship. Their contributions to the &quot;interlocking of sexual and racial patterns of dominance&quot; in historical study helped bring the personal and intimate, arguably Stoler&#039;s central theme in her methodology, to the forefront.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3249 2017-10-02T21:58:23Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline for the purpose of comparing similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, her focus rests instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that Amy Kaplan&#039;s 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument that American imperialism has been viewed as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories were formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question. In unpacking the parameters of these questions, particularly the concept of the intimate in both early colonialism and later American imperialism, Stoler also points to feminist scholarship.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3248 2017-10-02T21:12:47Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline for the purpose of comparing similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> Stoler&#039;s call for reform stems from a push by academics to examine socio-cultural spaces and question definitions of colonialism found throughout the history of the United States. Having moved past paradigms of American exceptionalism, her focus rests instead on how students of American history explore colonialism and where it is geographically situated. She cites several examples that attempt to answer this two-part question: where is the intimate in American imperialism and why is early American colonialism not discussed as well? For the first part, Stoler finds that Amy Kaplan&#039;s 1993 &#039;&#039;Cultures of United States Imperialism&#039;&#039; illuminates this problem in defining the American imperial experience during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kaplan&#039;s argument that American imperialism has been viewed as a &quot;mere episode in American history, little more than a twenty-year blip on the democratic and domestic national horizon&quot; served to shift the conversation instead towards the relationship between colonized, colonizer, and how these categories were formed. To this end, Stoler situates this academic shift not only in the field of history but also in sociology and anthropology, encouraging a multi-disciplinary perspective on the historical question.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3247 2017-10-02T18:43:09Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, Stoler and company view the colonial regimes of the United States through a broad timeline for the purpose of comparing similarities in rule over the racial, sexual, and gendered intimate sphere.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3246 2017-10-02T18:40:45Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer. In this context, the colonial regimes of the United States are viewed through a broad timeline for the purpose of comparing America&#039;s colonial character from its early history to American imperialism in the 1890s and into the twentieth century.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3245 2017-10-02T18:34:54Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time. The end goal of these essays then is to fight against narrow examinations of colonial institutions in American history that rely heavily on the writings of those institutions to base historical arguments. Instead, as Stoler puts it, colonial regimes should not be viewed as &quot;hegemonic institutions,&quot; but rather as &quot;imperfect and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines&quot; with the purpose of cataloging difference, maintaining hierarchies of power, and penetrating intimate spaces to determine similarity and difference when compared to the colonizer.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3244 2017-10-02T18:29:15Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; features a compilation of essays that examine the historiography of colonialism and imperialism in the United States. The broad purview of this work stretches from early colonial America, westward expansion to the frontier, and the United States&#039; imperial expansion into Latin America and the Pacific during the turn of the twentieth century. In all contexts, the featured authors, ranging from anthropologists to historians, engage with Stoler&#039;s call for revision in the study of America&#039;s colonial and imperial past. Her methodology focuses on &quot;the intimate and public spaces of United States history; how relations of empire crash through and then recede from easy purview, sunder families, storm sequestered spaces, and indelibly permeate ... institutions and the landscapes of people&#039;s lives.&quot; Furthermore, she calls for a comparative approach to the study of intimacy (i.e. self-identity, sexuality, race, family), placing great consideration on the &quot;social imaginaries of high and low, colonial subjects, agents, and architects that spanned continents and traversed empires and national borders.&quot; These elements, inspired the works of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, ground the purpose of &#039;&#039;Haunted by Empire&#039;&#039; as a challenge to American historians and the scholarship of colonialism and imperialism being produced at the time.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3243 2017-10-02T17:59:41Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = May 2006<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Body text.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category: Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category: Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category: Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Early_America/Colonial_History&diff=3242 2017-10-02T17:31:35Z

<p>StevenGarcia: /* Book Summaries */</p> <hr /> <div>==Book Summaries==<br /> * Anderson, [[Crucible of War|Crucible of War: The Seven Years&#039; War and the Fate of Empire in British North America]], 2000<br /> * Axtell, [[The Invasion Within|The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America]], 1985<br /> * Bailyn, [[The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson]], 1974<br /> * Bilder, [[The Transatlantic Constitution: Colonial Legal Culture and Empire]], 2004<br /> * Breen, [[The Marketplace of Revolution]], 2005<br /> * Bushman, [[From Puritan to Yankee|From Puritan to Yankee: Character and the Social Order in Connecticut]], 1980<br /> * Bushman, [[The Refinement of America|The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities]], 1993<br /> * Calloway, [[One Vast Winter Count|One Vast Winter Count: The Native American West before Lewis &amp; Clark]], 2006<br /> * Calloway, [[The American Revolution in Indian Country|The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities]], 1995<br /> * Cronon, [[Changes in the Land|Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England]], 1983<br /> * Dayton, [[Women Before the Bar|Women Before the Bar: Gender Law and Society in Connecticut]], 1995<br /> * Dubois, [[Avengers of the New World|Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution]], 2004<br /> * Eccles, [[France in America]], 1972<br /> * Hancock, [[Citizens of the World|Citizens of the World: London Merchants and the Integration of the Atlantic Community]], 1997<br /> * Hatfield, [[Atlantic Virginia: Intercolonial Relations in the Seventeenth Century]], 2004<br /> * Hoffman, [[Princes of Ireland, Planters of Maryland|Princes of Ireland, Planters of Maryland: A Carroll Saga, 1500-1782]], 2002<br /> *Heyrman, [[Southern Cross|Southern Cross: The Beginnings of the Bible Belt]], 1997<br /> * Isaac, [[The Transformation of Virginia 1740-1790]], 1982<br /> * Kerber, [[Women of the Republic]], 1980<br /> * Kramer, [[The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review]] (2004)<br /> * Kulikoff, [[From British Peasants to Colonial American Farmers]], 2000<br /> * Kupperman, [[ Settling with the Indians|Settling with the Indians: The Meeting of English and Indian Cultures in America]], 1580-1640, 1980<br /> * Lemon, [[The Best Poor Man&#039;s Country|The Best Poor Man&#039;s Country: A Geographical Study of Early Southeastern Pennsylvania]], 1972<br /> * Morgan, E, [[American Slavery, American Freedom]], 1975<br /> * Morgan, E, [[The Visible Saints]], 1975<br /> * Morgan, P, [[Slave Counterpoint|Slave Counterpoint, Black Culture in the Eighteenth Century Chesapeake and Lowcountry]], 1998<br /> * Newman, [[Parades and the Politics of the Street: Festive Culture in the Early American Republic]] (1997)<br /> * Pybus, [[Epic Journeys of Freedom|Epic Journeys of Freedom: Runaway Slaves of the American Revolution and their Quest for Global Liberty]], 2006<br /> * Rakove, [[Original Meanings – The Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution]], 1996<br /> * Roeber, [[Palatines, Liberty, and Property|Palatines, Liberty, and Property: German Lutherans in Colonial British North America]], 1998<br /> * Rorabaugh, [[The Alcoholic Republic|The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition]], 1981<br /> * Sehat, [[The Myth of American Religious Freedom ]], 2011<br /> * Slauter, [[The State as a Work of Art: The Cultural Origins of the Constitution]], 2009<br /> * Stoler, [[Haunted by Empire|Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History]], 2006<br /> * Usner, [[Indians, Settlers, and Slaves in a Frontier Exchange Economy]], 1992<br /> * White, [[The Middle Ground|The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region]], 1991<br /> * Wood, [[The Radicalism of the American Revolution]], 1992<br /> * Yamin, [[Digging in the City of Brotherly Love|Stories from Philadelphia Archaeology]], 2008</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3241 2017-10-02T17:18:29Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = 2006-05<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> <br /> Body text.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category: Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category: Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category: Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3240 2017-10-02T17:18:22Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = 2006-05<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}<br /> Body text.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category: Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category: Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category: Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Nineteeth_Century_United_States&diff=3239 2017-10-02T17:16:54Z

<p>StevenGarcia: /* Book Summaries */</p> <hr /> <div>==Book Summaries==<br /> * Philip S. Klein. [[President James Buchanan| President James Buchanan: A Biography]] (1962).<br /> * Menahem Blondheim. [[News over the Wires|News over the Wires: The Telegraph and the Flow of Public Information in America, 1844-1897]] (1994). <br /> * Paul Boyer. [[Urban Masses and Moral Order in America, 1820-1920]] (1992). <br /> * Amy Bridges. [[A City in the Republic|A City in the Republic: Antebellum New York and the Origins of Machine Politics]] (2008). <br /> * Francis G. Couvares. [[The Remaking of Pittsburgh|The Remaking of Pittsburgh: Class and Culture in an Industrializing City 1877-1919]] (1984). <br /> * Albert Bricker. [[Democracy of Soundz|Democracy of Sound: Music Piracy and the Remaking of American Copyright in the Twentieth Century]]<br /> * Robin L. Einhorn. [[Property Rules|Property Rules: Political Economy in Chicago, 1833-1872]] (2001).<br /> * Philip J. Ethington. [[The Public City|The Public City: The Political Construction of Urban Life in San Francisco, 1850-1900]] (2001). <br /> * Ann Fabian. [[Card Sharps and Bucket Shops|Card Sharps and Bucket Shops: Gambling in Nineteenth-Century America]] (1999). <br /> * Eric Foner. [[Reconstruction|Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877]] (2002). <br /> * David B. Freeman. [[Carved in Stone|Carved in Stone: The History of Stone Mountain]] (1997). <br /> * Gary Gallagher and Alan Nolan (ed). [[The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History|The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History]] (2000).<br /> * Eugene D. Genovese. [[Roll, Jordan, Roll|Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made]] (1976). <br /> * Paul Gilroy [http://tropicsofmeta.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/the-modern-paul-gilroy-modernity-transnationalism-and-the-impact-of-the-black-atlantic-on-history/ The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness] (1993). <br /> * Steven Hahn. [[A Nation under Our Feet|A Nation under Our Feet: Black Political Struggles in the Rural South from Slavery to the Great Migration]] (2005). <br /> * Harper-Ho, V. [[Noncitizen Voting Rights|Noncitizen Voting Rights: The History, the Law and Current Prospects for Change]]. Immigr. &amp; Nat’lity L. Rev., 21, 477. (2000).<br /> * Steven Hertzberg. [[Strangers Within the Gate City|Strangers Within the Gate City: The Jews of Atlanta, 1845-1915]] (1978). <br /> * Thomas R. Hietala. [[Manifest Design|Manifest Design: American Exceptionalism and Empire]] (2002). <br /> * Richard Hofstadter. [[The American Political Tradition|The American Political Tradition: And the Men Who Made it]] (1989). <br /> * Richard Hofstadter.[[Social Darwinism in American Thought]] (1992). <br /> * Michael F. Holt.[[Political Parties and American Political Development from the Age of Jackson to the Age of Lincoln]] (1992).<br /> * John R. Hornady.[[Atlanta, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow]] (1922). <br /> * Amy Kaplan.[[The Anarchy of Empire in the Making of U.S. Culture]] (2005). <br /> * Larry D. Kramer, [[The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review]] (2004).<br /> * Drew R. McCoy. [[The Elusive Republic|The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America]] (1996). <br /> * Pearson, R. [[Towards an Historical Model of Services Innovation|Towards an Historical Model of Services Innovation: The Case of the Insurance Industry, 1700–1914]]. The Economic History Review, 50(2) , 235–256. (1997).<br /> * Wallace Putnam Reed. [[History of Atlanta, Georgia|History of Atlanta, Georgia: with illustrations and biographical sketches of some of its prominent men and pioneers]] (2011). <br /> * Heather Cox Richardson. [[The Death of Reconstruction|The Death of Reconstruction: Race, Labor, and Politics in the Post-Civil War North, 1865-1901]] (2004). <br /> * Daniel T. Rodgers. [[Contested Truths|Contested Truths: Keywords in American Politics Since Independence]] (1998). <br /> * Mary P. Ryan. [[Women in Public|Women in Public: Between Banners and Ballots, 1825-1880]] (1992). <br /> * Allison L. Sneider. [[Suffragists in an Imperial Age|Suffragists in an Imperial Age: U.S. Expansion and the Woman Question, 1870-1929]] (2008). <br /> * Christine Stansell. [[City of Women|City of Women: Sex and Class in New York, 1789-1860]] (1987). <br /> * Ann Laura Stoler. [[Haunted by Empire|Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History]] (2006).<br /> * Jr, Sam Bass Warner. [[The Private City|The Private City: Philadelphia in Three Periods of Its Growth]] (1987). <br /> * Sean Wilentz. [[Chants Democratic|Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788-1850, 20th Anniversary Edition]] (1984). <br /> * T. Harry Williams.[[Lincoln and His Generals]] (1952).<br /> *Zimmerman, Andrew. [http://tropicsofmeta.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/the-ties-that-bind-the-transnational-trick-of-immobilizing-the-mobile/ Alabama in Africa: Booker T. Washington, the German Empire, and the Globalization of the New South] (2010).<br /> * Wendy Hamand Venet. [[A Changing Wind|A Changing Wind: Commerce and Conflict in Civil War Atlanta]] (2014).<br /> * Claudio Saunt. [[Black, White, and Indian|Black, White, and Indian: Race and the Unmasking of an American Family]] (2005).<br /> * Leon Litwack. [[North of Slavery|North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States: 1790 – 1860]] (1961).<br /> * Howard N. Rabinowitz. [[Race Relations in the Urban South|Race Relations in the Urban South: 1865 – 1890]] (1978).<br /> * Richard C. Wade. [[Slavery in the Cities|Slavery in the Cities: The South, 1820 - 1860]] (1964).</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3238 2017-10-02T17:15:57Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = 2006-05<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}Body text.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category: Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category: Nineteenth Century United States]]<br /> [[Category: Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3237 2017-10-02T17:14:45Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = 2006-05<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}Body text.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category: Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3236 2017-10-02T17:13:27Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | author = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = 2006-05<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=File:Haunted_by_Empire.jpg&diff=3235 2017-10-02T17:12:57Z

<p>StevenGarcia: Book cover for Stoler&#039;s Haunted by Empire.</p> <hr /> <div>Book cover for Stoler&#039;s Haunted by Empire.</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Haunted_by_Empire&diff=3234 2017-10-02T17:11:11Z

<p>StevenGarcia: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History<br /> | editor = Ann Laura Stoler<br /> | publisher = Duke University Press<br /> | pub_date = 2006-05<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Reproducing_Empire&diff=3233 2017-10-02T17:10:22Z

<p>StevenGarcia: Undo revision 3232 by StevenGarcia (talk)</p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico<br /> | author = Laura Briggs<br /> | publisher = University of California Press<br /> | pub_date = 2002-12-02<br /> | pages = 304<br /> | isbn = 0520232585<br /> | image = [[File:Reproducing Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}Laura Briggs&#039;s work Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico continues a recent trend in connecting colonial histories to that of domestic issues affecting imperial powers, “colonialism was not something that happened ‘over there,’ with little or no effect on the internal dynamics and culture of the imperial power itself …. On the contrary, colonialism has had a profound effect on the culture and policy of the mainland.” Additionally, Briggs work pushes back against the traditional belief that U.S. colonial policy forced the sterilization of a large segment of the island’s female population. This argument was made famous by the documentary film “La Operacion”.<br /> <br /> Sexual regulation of women did not rise and fall with the American Empire. Rather Briggs carefully traces the transnational developments between empires and colonies that provided the foundation of future U.S. policies from the nineteenth century British Contagious Disease Acts passed by Britain to the segregated districts of American cities in the early decades of the 20th century. In fact, Briggs argues that an international policy of prostitution regulation developed in these years. Subsequently, it became very easy for venereal disease to be associated with such occupations and the populations officials believed practiced. Thus, the conflation with disease not only with the visible “other” but also with swamps and tropical locations fed ideas about the promiscuity and diseased nature of native women.<br /> <br /> As with Suffragists in the Imperial Age, Briggs locates the influence of women’s groups/associations such as the WTCU and the LNA (Ladies National Association) in Puerto Rico and what that meant not only for natives of the Island but also Americans domestically. This space enabled women to take a visible role in the public sphere domestically and in Puerto Rico but also promoted the interests of Puerto Rican elites as the WCTU allied itself with local ladies clubs of patrician cast. It also sparked debates about citizenship: “As in other empires, U.S. prostitution policy on the island was tremendously important area of debate over the nature of colonial modernity and the struggle over the meaning of Puerto Rican citizenship took place specifically with reference to prostitution.” Critically, Briggs notes that jailing convicted prostitutes began in the colonies such that by 1918, the practice appeared stateside in numerous metropolitan areas. Moreover, the WTCU participated in the incarceration of prostitutes in both the Philippines and Puerto Rico. At the same time, these jails were recast as “hospitals,&quot; and several U.S. cities following WWI established similar institutions, notably SF, SD, and New York. “Between 1917 and 1918, then, gender and women’s bodies became a significant idiom in which colonial relations were negotiated. North American politicians, reformers, and missionaries identified the victimization of women, or, conversely, the danger they posed, as an important reason for massive repression and intervention. The increasingly visible poor women of the dislocated rural classes appear in this literature as “loose” women in need of containment.” Puerto Rican elites and the colonial government combined to enact programs of regulation. Such attempts helped to solidify what Briggs argues “would become a constant feature of Puerto Rican politics: from eugenics to population policy to sterilization, the sexuality and reproduction of poor women would become the battleground – symbolic and real – for the meaning of the U.S. presence in Puerto Rico.” What this meant for the domestic U.S. becomes concrete as mainland migrations continued. The colonial government’s utilization of the discourse of gender to intervene in the lives of working class Puerto Ricans provides a “genealogy of the demonization of poor women in the welfare reform debates of 1994-97.” Though Briggs does not make this argument, one can imagine such approaches melding easily with the social science discourse that emerged over the same period stateside.<br /> <br /> As the academic discourse came to dominate discussions about the regulation of female bodies, Cold War concerns imposed themselves on U.S. policy. “Third World women’s sexual behavior was rendered dangerous and unreasonable, the cause of poverty and hence of communism and needed to be made known, managed, and regulated.” The language of social science emerged as the new battleground. Briggs certainly suggests that the work of social scientists did as much to obscure issues/individuals while perpetuating negative and often inaccurate conclusions.<br /> <br /> Another aspect of Briggs’ argument regards the development of the birth control pill. Tropes regarding Puerto Rico and the Third World generally conflated the global south with overpopulation: “Overpopulation provided a sociological explanation for Third World poverty, one that denied a role for international capitalism or colonialism in producing these conditions.” Similar fears surfaced in Puerto Rico, helping to enable large pharmaceutical companies to invest in and develop the birth control pill. As Briggs argues, fears of overpopulation created the ethical space to justify such experimentation: “Reproductive research produced the pill as a specific technological fix to the Third World problem of overpopulation. In doing so, it rendered the account of overpopulation as more plausible by associating it with science and technological solutions at the height of the Cold War belief in them.”<br /> <br /> Finally, Briggs’ work refutes previous arguments that suggest the colonial government imposed “forced sterilization.” Instead, Briggs offers evidence (sociological studies/surveys, financial information as in defunding) that some women requested the operation and few reported complaints. However, Briggs cautions that “it is not an argument that working class women chose to be sterilized, it is an argument that there is no evidence that there was a representative campaign to force them.” In connection with sterilization and larger birth control debates, Briggs points to a fundamental problem that mainland feminists faced. Nationalist pro-independence groups promoted natalism while the colonial government encouraged sterilization. As Briggs notes, despite the best intentions feminists could not escape the “terms of U.S. national, colonial, and racial discourse … when mainland feminists … accepted the nationalist version of the subaltern – the women are victimized – while rejecting or ignoring the perspective of feminists like those in Pro Familia as duped, bourgeois pawns of colonialism, they accepted a pro-natalist anti-feminism because it carried the banner of the subaltern.” U.S. anti-colonialists “demanded that the only ‘authentic natives’ were those that could occupy the position of the ‘people’. Puerto Rican feminists failed to fit the bill because they were middle class professionals and intellectuals who differed with charismatic nationalist leaders.”<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Global History]]<br /> [[Category:Science Studies]]<br /> [[Category:Laura Briggs]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Latin American History]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia https://www.videri.org/index.php?title=Reproducing_Empire&diff=3232 2017-10-02T17:08:55Z

<p>StevenGarcia: Replaced content with &quot;{{Infobox book | name = Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico | author = Laura Briggs | publisher = University...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox book<br /> | name = Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico<br /> | author = Laura Briggs<br /> | publisher = University of California Press<br /> | pub_date = 2006-05<br /> | pages = 568<br /> | isbn = 082233724X<br /> | image = [[File:Haunted by Empire.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]<br /> }}Body test.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Ann Laura Stoler]]<br /> [[Category:Wikify]]<br /> [[Category:Book Summaries]]<br /> [[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]</div>

StevenGarcia