Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Towards protocols for describing racially offensive language in UK public archives

Abstract

The UK’s history of colonialism has resulted in an archival record that includes evidence of ethnically diverse populations and examples of racialised oppression. Government records created within this legacy present people of colour through a colonial lens, often adopting racist language. Taking inspiration from Australian and North American protocols for the culturally sensitive management of archives documenting indigenous communities and considering the effectiveness of existing common descriptive practice in the UK, some initial recommendations for appropriate descriptive practice are made. These are offered in a tiered format of ‘good, better, best’ practice, responsive to widespread resource constraints in the UK public archive sector. It is hoped that considering the practicable steps that can be taken to decolonise archival descriptive practices can contribute towards broader transformations in the sector. Please note that this article contains terms that may upset or offend readers; these have been included only where necessary for illustrative purposes and are denoted with inverted commas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ajamu X, Campbell T, Stevens M (2009) Love and lubrication in the archives, or rukus! a black queer archive for the United Kingdom. Archivaria 68:271–294

  2. ALIA (1995, amended 2009) Libraries and information services and indigenous peoples. https://www.alia.org.au/about-alia/policies-standards-and-guidelines/libraries-and-information-services-and-indigenous-peoples. Accessed 16 Jul 2017

  3. ARA (2018a) ARA calls for action over ‘Windrush’ landing cards. http://www.archives.org.uk/news/714-ara-calls-for-action-over-windrush.html. Accessed 12 May 2018

  4. ARA (2018b) Code of ethics. http://www.archives.org.uk/images/ARA_Documents/ARA_Code_Of_Ethics.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2018

  5. ARA and CILIP (2015) A study of the UK information workforce. Mapping the library, archives, records, information management and knowledge management and related professions in the United Kingdom. http://www.archives.org.uk/images/Workforce/A_study_of_the_information_workforce_141115_7mb.pdf. Accessed 23 Jul 2018

  6. ASA (1996) Policy statement on archival services and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. https://www.archivists.org.au/documents/item/32. Accessed 16 Jul 2017

  7. ATSIDA protocols (2013) https://www.atsida.edu.au/protocols/atsida/background. Accessed 16 Jul 2017

  8. ATSILIRN (2012) ATSILIRN protocols for libraries, archives and information services, 3rd ed. http://atsilirn.aiatsis.gov.au/protocols.php. Accessed 15 Jul 2017

  9. Bastian J, Alexander B (eds) (2009) Community archives: the shaping of memory. Facet, London

  10. Boles F, George-Shongo D, and Weideman C (2008) Report: task force to review protocols for Native American archives. http://files.archivists.org/governance/taskforces/0208-NativeAmProtocols-IIIA.pdf. Accessed 16 Jul 2017

  11. Buchanan A, Bastian M (2015) Activating the archive: rethinking the role of traditional archives for local activist projects. Arch Sci 15:429–451

  12. Bulcer J (2009) The protocols for Native American Archival Materials: considerations and concerns from the perspective of a non-tribal archivist. Easy Access Newsl Northwest Arch 34(4):3–6

  13. Caswell M (2014a) Seeing yourself in history: community archives in the fight against symbolic annihilation. Public Hist 36(4):26–37

  14. Caswell M (2014b) Towards a survivor-centred approach to records documenting human rights abuses: lessons from community archives. Arch Sci 14:307–322

  15. Caswell M, Cifor M (2016) From human rights to feminist ethics: radical empathy in the archives. Arch Sci 81:23–43

  16. Caswell M, Cifor M, Ramirez MH (2016) “To suddenly discover yourself existing”: uncovering the impact of community archives. Am Arch 79(1):56–81

  17. Chopra A (2014) Structural violence. Int J Multidiscip Approach Stud 1(4):26–37

  18. Cifor M (2016) Aligning bodies: collecting, arranging, and describing hatred for a critical queer archives. Library Trends 64(4):756–775

  19. Cook T (1997) What is past is prologue: a history of archival ideas since 1898, and the future paradigm shift. Archivaria 43:17–63

  20. Cook T, Schwartz JM (2002) Archives, records, and power: from (postmodern) theory to (archival) performance. Arch Sci 2(3–4):171–185

  21. Cross WE (1971) The negro-to-black conversion experience. Black World 20(9):13–27

  22. Cross WE (1991) Shades of black: diversity in African-American identity. Temple University Press, Philadelphia

  23. Culpeper J (2009) Impoliteness: using and understanding the language of offence. http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/projects/impoliteness/index.htm. Accessed 18 Apr 2017

  24. Davies BL, Haugh M, Merrison AJ (2011) Situated politeness. Continuum, London

  25. Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) (2016) The culture white paper. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/510798/DCMS_The_Culture_White_Paper_3_.pdf. Accessed 21 Jul 2017

  26. Duff VM, Harris V (2002) Stories and names: archival description as narrating records and constructing meanings. Arch Sci 2:263–285

  27. Dunbar AW (2006) Introducing critical race theory to archival discourse—getting the conversation started. Arch Sci 6(1):109–129

  28. Duranti L (1993) Origin and development of the concept of archival description. Archivaria 35:47–54

  29. Fairclough N (2013) Discourse and socio-cultural change. In: Fairclough N (ed) Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language, 2nd edn. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 85–112

  30. First Archivist Circle (2007) Protocols for Native American Archival Materials. http://www2.nau.edu/libnap-p/protocols.html. Accessed 7 Jul 2017

  31. Flinn A (2011) Archival activism: independent and community-led archives, radical public history and the heritage professions. InterActions 7(2):1–20

  32. Flinn A, Stevens M, Shepherd E (2009) Whose memories, whose archives? Independent community archives, autonomy and the mainstream. Arch Sci 9:71–86

  33. Gilliland AJ (2012) Contemplating co-creator rights in archival description. Knowl Organ 39(5):340–346

  34. NSW Government (2016) Protocols for staff working with indigenous people, 2nd ed. https://www.records.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/About/Protocols%20for%20Staff%20Working%20with%20Indigenous%20People.pdf. Accessed 16 Jul 2017

  35. Gresham E, Higgins S (2012) Improving browsability of archive catalogues using Web 2.0. Libr Rev 61(5):309–326

  36. Guerin B (2003) Combating prejudice and racism: new interventions from a functional analysis of racist language. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 13(1):29–45

  37. Huvila I (2008) Participatory archive: towards decentralised curation, radical user orientation, and broader contextualisation of records management. Arch Sci 8:15–36

  38. Jay T (2009) Do offensive words harm people? Psychol Public Policy Law 15(2):81–101

  39. Jimerson RC (2006) Embracing the power of archives. Am Arch 69(1):19–32

  40. Jules B (2016) Confronting our failure of care around the legacies of marginalised people in the archives. Keynote speech delivered at: national Digital Stewardship Alliance Annual Meeting. https://medium.com/on-archivy/confronting-our-failure-of-care-around-the-legacies-of-marginalized-people-in-the-archives-dc4180397280. Accessed 7 Jul 2017

  41. Kennedy R (2008) Nigger: the strange career of a troublesome word. Doubleday, New York

  42. Ketelaar E (2005) Recordkeeping and societal power. In: McKemmish S, Piggott M, Reed B, Upward F (eds) Archives: recordkeeping in society. Charles Sturt University Press, Wagga-Wagga, pp 277–298

  43. Lee JA (2016) Mediated storytelling practices and productions: archival bodies of affective evidences. Netw Knowl 9(6):74–87

  44. Light M, Hyry T (2002) Colophons and annotations: new directions for the finding aid. Am Arch 65(2):216–230

  45. MacNeil H (2005) Picking our text: archival description, authenticity and the archivist as editor. Am Arch 68(2):264–278

  46. McGloin C, Carlson BL (2013) Indigenous studies and the politics of language. J Univ Teach Learn Pract 10(1):1–10

  47. McKemmish S, Faulkhead S, Russell L (2011) Distrust in the archive: reconciling records. Arch Sci 11(3–4):211–238

  48. Meehan J (2009) Making the leap from parts to whole: evidence and inference in archival arrangement and description. Am Arch 72(1):72–90

  49. Museum Detox: BAME network for museum and heritage professionals (2019) https://museumdetox.com. Accessed 15 May 2019

  50. Nakata M, Byrne A, Nakata V, and Gardiner G (2006) Mapping the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander protocols for libraries, archives and information services. http://atsilirn.aiatsis.gov.au/docs/mapping.pdf. Accessed 10 Jul 2017

  51. O’Neal JR (2012a) Archival advocacy, inside out: the protocols for Native American Archival Materials. Paper delivered at: ATALM Conference Oklahoma, USA. https://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/AAA_Protocols_JenniferONeal_10.02.2012.pdf. Accessed 17 Jul 2017

  52. O’Neal JR (2012b) Final report: Native American Protocols forum working group. https://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/0112-V-I-NativeAmProtocolsForum.pdf. Accessed 16 Jul 2017

  53. O’Neal JR (2015) ‘The right to know’: decolonising native American archives. J West Arch 6(1):1–17

  54. Paterson DE (2001) A perspective on indexing slaves’ names. Am Arch 64(1):132–142

  55. Prom CJ (2004) User interactions with electronic finding aids in a controlled setting. Am Arch 67(2):234–268

  56. Rasmussen KS (2011) Foucault’s genealogy of racism. Theory Culture Soc 28(5):34–51

  57. Ray L, Shepherd E, Laperdrix M (2012) Funding the archive sector: research report. The National Archives and the International Centre for Archives and Records Management Research and User Studies, London

  58. SAA (2018) Endorsement of Protocols for Native American Archival Materials. https://www2.archivists.org/statements/saa-council-endorsement-of-protocols-for-native-american-archival-materials. Accessed 15 Aug 2018

  59. Samouelian M (2009) Embracing Web 2.0: archives and the newest generation of web applications. Am Arch 72(1):42–71

  60. Schwartz JM, Cook T (2002) Archives, records and power: from (postmodern) theory to (archival) performance. Arch Sci 2:171–185

  61. Silk A (2016) Discourse contextualism: a framework for contextualist semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  62. The National Archives (2017a) Archives unlocked: releasing the potential. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/archives/Archives-Unlocked-Brochure.pdf. Accessed 21 Jul 2017

  63. The National Archives (2017b) Archives unlocked: action plan. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/archives/Action-Plan-Brochure.pdf. Accessed 21 Jul 2017

  64. The National Archives (2017c) Cataloguing paper records: guidance for government departments. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/cataloguing-guidance.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2017

  65. Tyler IE (2018) Deportation nation: Theresa May’s hostile environment. J Study Br Cultures. http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/125439/. Accessed 10 Feb 2019

  66. Weinberg J (2017) Bureaucracy as violence. Mich Law Rev 115(6):1097–1116

  67. White KL (2017) Race and culture: an ethnic studies approach to archival and record-keeping research in the United States. In: Gilliland AJ, McKemmish S, Lau AJ (eds) Research in the archival multiverse. Monash University Publishing, Clayton, pp 352–381

  68. Wood S, Carbone K, Cifor M, Gilliland A, Punzalan R (2014) Mobilizing records: re-framing archival description to support human rights. Arch Sci 14(3–4):397–419

  69. Yakel E (2003) Archival representation. Arch Sci 3:1–25

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Alicia Chilcott.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chilcott, A. Towards protocols for describing racially offensive language in UK public archives. Arch Sci 19, 359–376 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-019-09314-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Archival description
  • Archives
  • Racially offensive terminology
  • Professional ethics
  • Record-keeping practice
  • Decolonisation