Been thinking a lot lately how in AP European history the Renaissance was described as this universally wonderful time of discovery, but also a lot of European colonialism borrowed heavily from Roman imperial strategy

Also I've been thinking about how British historians have described Roman occupation as this great benefit for the islands and reified how great it was, and how that mirrors a lot of the rhetoric the British use to justify their own colonialism

I have been out of academia for awhile so I don't know if anyone is doing scholarship around the historiography of Roman Britain as it relates to British colonialism

And like, it seems really obviously connected? But if so, how did I not encounter this in any history class

I know there's work already being done around how white supremacists are weaponizing the Middle Ages / Viking history

And also I know a lot of people have written about how the archaeology surrounding Neolithic peoples in Europe has been weaponized against Indigenous people around the world

If I could actually still go to archives and uh also do a lot of nonfiction reading (love 2 have brain fog)...

I would be really interested in trying to see if there was a shift in how British writers described the Roman occupation

Obviously there's less written record available the earlier you go, but...

Also examining the differences in how white historians from Europe vs CA, US, AU, SA describe the Roman occupation of Europe

As well as differences between academic texts and high school textbooks https://twitter.com/paperstainedink/status/1290059289457881089?s=19

Obviously Not All British Historians or whatever, but definitely like...a lot of the ones in the 19th and early 20th century, can't speak to other periods https://twitter.com/UntoNuggan/status/1290057603788107776?s=19