Cape slave historiography and the question of intellectual dependence
Cuthbertson, Greg
Since the appearance of Peter Novick‘s influential study on American historical
writing,’ historians have been driven back to consider the nature of their craft,
but more significantly, also to take stock of recent historiography. Most of all,
Novick has made us look at what historiography is and how history is produced,
which has sparked a vigorous methodological debate. His book appears to have
added impetus to Colin Bundy’s recent evocative essay, which compares
historical writing in the United States (US) and South Africa2 Bundy’s
purpose was to compare equivalent historiographical schools in order to
elucidate their ideological contexts and highlight the particular contribution of
social history in these respective historiographies. His contribution is singular
in its attempt to offer a synthesis, in contrast to the more limited scope and
aims of the other articles. In this, Bundy went beyond a mere comparison for
comparison’s sake, to a profound exploration of how history is produced in
particular situations. It is remarkable, however, that American slave historiography
was omitted from Bundy’s analysis, especially in view of the sheer
size and intellectual weight of scholarship on the history of slavery in the US
since the 1950s. One explanation for this omission may be that Bundy does not
consider the swelling historiography on Cape slavery to be of equal significance.
↧