Search

Historians are generally coy and diffident when it comes to engaging with the moral question despite it being a critical aspect of doing history. However, historians of empire cannot evade the moral question given the ethical dilemmas that imperialism posed for the men at its helm. To portray the colonists as hypocrites is too facile and cynical an explanation. So, what allowed the British colonists to manage the conscience that they indeed possessed? As Priya Satia boldly argues in Time's Monster: How History Makes History, the answer to this question resides in historicism, which became the new ethical idiom from the nineteenth century onward. It enabled the British colonists to assuage their conscience and made the empire an ethically thinkable reality. It helped whitewash colonial violence and generate public acceptance for colonization. The historians' power lay in anointing history as providence and in using it to paper over the cracks in the British conscience. Being able to narrate was itself a manifestation of power. It was only after the Second World War that history renounced its pact with power and a reimagination of the historical idiom emerged. Various shades of South Asian and Caribbean anti‐colonial leaders and postcolonial writers began to think beyond the historicist category of the empire. These efforts to dismantle the empire's historical narratives were paralleled by the writings of British historian E. P. Thompson, although he remained tied to the idea of history as progress. The moral question, however, remains unsettled. It endures for present‐day historians because the teleserials, nostalgic period dramas, and "great men" histories continue to hold sway over the public mind, generate debates about the "benefits" of the empire, and feed Britain's anti‐immigrant sentiments. Satia's book lies at the intersection of three sets of historiographies—histories of British political thought, postcolonial writings that highlight alternate conceptions of the past and the significance of orality, memory, and community history, and, lastly, histories of violence—all of which engage the moral question in some form or another. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reviews the book Challenging Traditional Classroom Spaces with YA Literature: Students in Community as Course Co‐Designers by Ricki Ginsberg (2022). Published amid increasingly contentious censoring of teachers' autonomy and students' rights to read in many districts across the United States, this book is a timely call for educators to rethink traditional curriculum choices and pedagogical approaches in the secondary literature classroom. Ginsberg makes a strong case for privileging engaging and relevant texts utilizing YA literature and centering students and their voices in communities of practice in the classroom. She offers a wide range of approaches to make this book relevant for teachers across the spectrum of autonomy, including impactful additions to existing curriculum for those in more constrained environments and a blueprint for a stand‐alone YA literature course for those with more flexibility. Geared toward an audience of secondary literature teachers with many practical pedagogical considerations and suggestions, the solid theoretical base makes this book a useful read for literacy researchers and administrators interested in promoting student‐centered pedagogical methods, leveraging meaningful communities of practice in classroom settings, and reaping the benefits of YA literature with secondary students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a critical re‐evaluation of C.S. Lewis's classic study of Christian love, The Four Loves (1960) that celebrated its 60th anniversary in 2020. After discussing important and neglected differences between the celebrated book and the largely forgotten radio talks which predate it, the paper asks and answers three important questions: Are there really four loves? What is the definition of love itself? What exactly is Charity? Lewis's answers to these questions are more eclectic than is generally assumed. The paper offers an appreciative rereading of The Four Loves that seeks to correct or at least challenge a number of longstanding misunderstandings about Lewis's taxonomy of love. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]