I have another stray musing for our resident Africanists, or anyone interested.

The field of African history is chronologically divided into pre-colonial, colonial, and post colonial eras.

The colonial era and post colonial eras have fairly obvious dividing lines, as countries gain independence from the imperial power, ranging from 1955 in Gold Coast/Ghana to 1975 in Angola and Mozambique, or 1994 in South Africa (if we consider Apartheid a form of 'internal colonialism').

However, when to date the beginning of the colonial era seems less concrete. One school of thought would seem to favor beginning the era on or around the Berlin Conference in 1884, because of the rapid inroads of European colonizers to divide up the entire continent into colonial posessions (with few exceptions).

On the other hand, others would point to the presence of Portuguese colonies in Angola and Mozambique starting in the 16th century, Dutch colonies in the Gulf of Benin and at the Cape of Good Hope in the 17th century, or British settlement at Sierra Leone as earlier examples of colonies.

Additionally, an argument for an earlier date for colonialism would try to link the establishment of the Atlantic Slave Trade to the creation of new world colonies, as a form of "old imperialism" distinct from the "new imperialism" of the 19th and 20th centuries.

However, such a description would really only apply to the coast where European and freedman settlement happened, and to the societies these Europeans had contact with. It would not be very descriptive for inland cultures.

So, fundamentally my question is, should the period from c.1450-1850 be considered part of a Colonial Era in African history?

Alternatively, should africanists take a page from the Americas and present those 4 centuries as a "contact period"? Or is the impact of the slave trade so profound that talking of "contact" becomes a euphemism?

So I was in a... spirited discussion over the validity of the "progressive historical narrative" this week, particularly in the context of art history. It was argued that it is valid since history, like most information, has to be told in a "narrative format", but I think it is a gross oversimplification of history that is both incorrect and unfair to those that exist outside of the specified linear narrative. What is the consensus in the historical community?

Dear historians:

Every once in a while I like to think about how I would change K - 12 education.

I was wondering how you folks would reform K - 12 history education. I guess I'd be thinking in the context of the United States, but don't let that limit you!

Has anyone applied for any conservation jobs with the Department of the Interior? Did you have to go through USAJobs? Was it the worst thing that ever happened to you?