Abstract

On the back of the Royal Historical Society’s 2018 report on race and ethnicity, as well as ongoing discussions about ‘decolonizing the syllabus’, this is a conversation piece titled, ‘Decolonizing History: Enquiry and Practice’. While ‘decolonization’ has been a key framework for historical research, it has assumed increasingly varied and nebulous meanings in teaching, where calls for ‘decolonizing’ are largely divorced from the actual end of empire. How does ‘decolonizing history’ relate to the study of decolonization? And can history, as a field of practice and study, be ‘decolonized’ without directly taking up histories of empire? Using the RHS report as a starting point, this conversation explores how we ‘decolonize history’. We argue that, rather than occurring through tokenism or the barest diversification of reading lists and course themes, decolonizing history requires rigorous critical study of empire, power and political contestation, alongside close reflection on constructed categories of social difference. Bringing together scholars from several UK universities whose teaching and research ranges across modern historical fields, this piece emphasizes how the study of empire and decolonization can bring a necessary global perspective to what tend to be framed as domestic debates on race, ethnicity, and gender.

中文翻译：

---

非历史化：探究与实践

摘要

在皇家历史学会2018年关于种族和族裔的报告以及正在进行的关于``将课程大纲非殖民化''的讨论的背景下，这是一篇名为``非殖民化历史：探究与实践''的对话文章。尽管“非殖民化”一直是历史研究的关键框架，但它在教学中已经呈现出越来越多样化和模糊的含义，其中“非殖民化”的呼吁与帝国的实际末日大相径庭。“非殖民化历史”与非殖民化研究有何关系？作为实践和研究领域的历史可以在不直接吸收帝国历史的情况下被“非殖民化”吗？本对话以RHS报告为起点，探讨了我们如何“非殖民化历史”。我们认为，与其通过代币主义或阅读清单和课程主题的无趣的多样化而发生，非殖民化的历史需要对帝国，权力和政治斗争进行严格的批判性研究，同时还要仔细思考已建立的社会差异类别。本文汇集了来自英国几所大学的学者，这些学者的教学和研究涉及现代历史领域，这本书强调了帝国和非殖民化研究如何能够为倾向于种族，种族和性别的国内辩论提供必要的全球视野。