This post is part of Reflecting on Imtiaz Habib’s Black Lives in the English Archives: An Online Symposium, organised and edited by Rebecca Adusei and Jamie Gemmell. The blog series is introduced here. The blog series was launched on Friday 19 Mary 2023 at the London Metropolitan Archives to tie in with their new ‘Unforgotten Lives’ exhibition.
Amber Burbidge
Amber Burbidge is a PhD researcher in the department of History at the European University Institute, Florence, whose research reassesses representations of race and gender in early modern material culture in European geographies, such as France and Britain, between 1650 -1800. Her research develops from the Early Modern History MA she completed at the University of York which looked at the Black female presence in portraiture, prints, and porcelain ‘blackamoor’ ornaments. She also works as a co-convenor for the Visual and Material Culture working group, as well as volunteering as an administrator for the Decolonising Initiative.
Habib’s Black Lives is monumental in its thorough rereading of archival material and its early establishment of the Black British presence. The monograph takes the form of both a methodological guide, leading readers through an incremental progression of archival findings, as well as providing a database-like appendix which holds 448 itemised ‘black citations’. Its methodologies and content have therefore been used by historians such as Kaufmann, Olusoga, Spicer and Chater, with its vast database proving to be a great inspiration for contemporary historians of the field. This post will critically assess and reflect on Habib’s work for historians who are thinking through gender studies and intersectional frameworks, considering how Black Lives is still relevant in contemporary historical gender studies.
Black history has been critiqued by Black feminist historians, such as Hooks, Hull, Bell-Scott and Smith, for its ignorance towards Black women. This is not completely the case with Habib, as his research is inclusive of a female presence. The issue, nevertheless, is that he writes with limited engagement on gender and with little recognition of the differences that women faced. In his first chapter he includes just one sentence on the issue mentioning that “of the 16 individuals of color named, three are women and 13 are men”, highlighting the gender imbalance, but without questioning why, or what this could mean for Black women. In his second chapter, where gender is addressed, it is still inadequate considering the level of research completed. He recognises that “black women themselves remain muted in a history that cannot speak”, however, he finishes his participation in the subject here, falling short of meaningful questioning or comprehensive intersectional research on the gendered experiences of British Black women. Furthermore, where he analyses numerical data, gender appears to be an afterthought, rather than a genuine academic question, as in comparison to his other data assessments gender takes up little space within the discussions. He questions if “the dearth of black women might be the reflection of an English preference for labor-capable black males”, yet again seems to leave this question floating without addressing the issue further.
This is not just an issue with Habib’s work but a general criticism of the historiography: scholars often fail to acknowledge Black women due to the dual discrimination of their gender and race. Therefore, scholars such as Crenshaw and Hobson have called for new intersectional studies, with Scott emphasising the fact that if “scholars commit to understanding class, race and gender” together, they will get a better understanding of the true “inequalities of power”.
This is where the work of Hartman and Fuentes create a bridge between modern intersectional approaches and Habib’s foundational research. Habib explains that “what is little looked for, and what is therefore non-existent, is also what is/should be unknown because it cannot be known”, encouraging the embracement of the uncertainty in turning unclear sources into numerical data. This methodology can be seen through Black, queer, and gender studies where Hartman’s methodologies of critical fabulation, close narration, or speculative history, allow one to “compose alternative narratives of black existence” by “engaging with extant archival materials critically and creatively”. With her aim to trace the afterlife of slavery in modern America and rescue narratives of those “sparsely documented” and “systematically excluded” she completed her research using a methodology which is “untethered or indifferent to the rules of the historical guild” as it, “lingers in the space [… of] the something else and the what-might-be”, allowing for new considerations of Black lives, which is both inclusive of gender and sexuality. Fuentes, looking at violence and enslaved women in archives, also emphasises the need to read “along the bias grain” to understand “the context of archives that are partial, incomplete, and structured by privileges of class, race, and gender” and are therefore “systematically distorted”. The two share similarities in their attitude towards the limitations of the archives, however, Fuentes, with an aspiration of archival integrity, looks at developing broader contextualisation in order to stretch the (often) small details available.
Hartman’s and Fuentes’ methodologies share similarities with Habib’s, which, by allowing for broader consideration of Blackness, ensures that there is not an ignorance towards the possibilities of a Black presence or an initial assumption of Whiteness. Furthermore, by making postulations based on people and contexts of surrounding communities, he applies a methodology which correlates with Hartman’s fabulation, or Fuentes’ uses of space, structures, and architecture, in order to understand what their life may have been, beyond their fragmented or brief mention in the archives (often simply the mention of a birth or baptism). Therefore, it is clear that Habib’s research and methodological approach is useful for contemporary historians working on gender and race, especially with his focus on reading into the unknown or the uncertain. By using this methodology, in addition to Hartman’s and Fuentes’ intersectional considerations, scholars can move beyond the limitations and bias of archival sources to reach new understandings of Black experiences and presence in Britain.
To conclude, I do not wish to negate the immense amount of work and archival research Habib has contributed as Black Lives is truly a foundational work. Critical engagement is required considering his limited focus on gender, however, if the historiography wishes to understand Black presence and experiences in the early modern period with an intersectional understanding, his work cannot be ignored. Habib uncovered the existence of over 40 assumed Black women in the period of 1500-1677 leaving these sources open to new analysis and explorations. His methodology allows for possibility and openness which can enable further understandings of the potentials of Black existence and experiences in the archives. As more historians move to consider race and a Black presence in their research, there is hope that new intersectional approaches can make use of the foundational framework that Habib has offered in his innovative Black Lives.