Explain on the following in details:
1 Nationalist historiography
2 Metropolitan historiography
1) Nationalist historiography:
Nationalist historiography refers to a particular approach to the writing and interpretation of history that focuses on the development and glorification of one's own nation or ethnic group. It is characterized by an emphasis on a nation's unique identity, its achievements, and its historical struggles, often in order to foster a sense of patriotism and nationalism among its people.
Nationalist historians tend to be deeply rooted in their own national culture, language, and worldview, which can sometimes lead to a biased understanding of history. They often prioritize the narrative of their own nation, emphasizing its successes and downplaying or ignoring its failures or negative aspects. This approach can result in a distorted or incomplete understanding of the past by presenting a more idealized or heroic version of history.
Nationalist historiography also often seeks to highlight the distinctiveness or exceptionalism of a particular nation. This can involve emphasizing historical events, figures, or ideas that contribute to a sense of national pride or identity. For example, nationalist historiography might focus on stories of wars won, heroic leaders, or important cultural achievements to reinforce a positive national image.
Furthermore, nationalist historiography frequently engages with the concept of national myths, which are often historical narratives that help to shape a nation's collective memory. These myths may involve historical events or figures that are exaggerated, glamorized, or even entirely fabricated in order to reinforce a nation's sense of identity and strengthen its unity.
2) Metropolitan historiography:
Metropolitan historiography refers to the production and study of history from the perspective of the colonial or imperial power. It is the historiography of the metropole or the dominant ruling nation rather than the colonies or peripheral regions of an empire. Metropolitan historians are typically based in the imperial capital and tend to focus on the history, experiences, and achievements of their own nation or ethnic group, often neglecting the perspectives and stories of those who were colonized or subjugated.
Metropolitan historiography is marked by a biased and often one-sided understanding of history, as it tends to promote and bolster the imperial power's narrative and agenda. It frequently portrays the colonial enterprise as being driven by a sense of benevolence or the desire to bring civilization and progress to the colonized people. This perspective tends to downplay or ignore the negative consequences of colonization, such as exploitation, violence, and the suppression of local cultures and traditions.
Metropolitan historians often view the colonies and colonized people through a lens of cultural superiority and sometimes see their own nation's influence and impact as being inherently positive. This can result in a distorted portrayal of the colonial relationship, as it fails to consider the perspectives and experiences of the colonized people who may have resisted or struggled against imperial domination.
In recent years, there has been a growing recognition and critique of the biases within metropolitan historiography, with efforts to incorporate the voices and perspectives of marginalized groups and challenge the dominant narrative of empire. Postcolonial and subaltern histories have emerged as alternative methodologies that seek to decentralize the colonial power's perspective and highlight the experiences and agency of colonized peoples.