Historical Research 

About: Historical Research is an academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Politics & Parliament. It has an ISSN identifier of 0950-3471. Over the lifetime, 1550 publications have been published receiving 10300 citations. The journal is also known as: Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research & Historical research.

Pandemics: waves of disease, waves of hate from the Plague of Athens to A.I.D.S.

Abstract: This article briefly surveys the history of pandemics in the West, contesting long-held assumptions that epidemics sparked hatred and blame of the ‘Other’, and that it was worse when diseases were mysterious as to their causes and cures. The article finds that blame and hate were rarely connected with pandemics in history. In antiquity, epidemics more often brought societies together rather than dividing them as continued to happen with some diseases such as influenza in modernity. On the other hand, some diseases such as cholera were more regularly blamed than others and triggered violence even after their agents and mechanisms of transmission had become well known.

Race, place and bodily difference in early nineteenth‐century India

Abstract: Changing ideas of race, place and bodily difference played a crucial part in the way in which the British in India thought about themselves, and more especially about Indians, in the half-century leading up to the Mutiny and Rebellion of 1857. But in seeking to make this case, this article aims to do more than merely illustrate the importance of ‘the body’ to the ideology and practice of nineteenth-century colonialism in one of its principal domains. Without, I hope, invoking too crass and simplistic a binary divide, it seeks to restate an argument about colonialism as a site of profound (and physically-grounded) difference. Binary divisions and dichotomous ideas may have passed out of favour of late among historians, with a growing barrage of attacks on Edward Said and Orientalism.1 But even if Orientalism provides an unreliable guide to the complex heterogeneity of imperial history, there is an equal danger that, in reacting so strongly against ideas of ‘otherness’, historians may too readily overlook or unduly diminish the ways in which ideas of difference were mobilized, in ideology and in practice, in the service of an imperial power.