|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > Aethelred's History Chamber > Micro vs. macro views of history |
| Moderated by: Aethelred | Page: 1 2   |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
shirohniichan Original500© Member  Obscurius per obscurum
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As I look through the new offerings of history books, I see more micro views than macros. For example, there are more books focusing on a part of a battle than on an entire war. I buy and read those that intrigue me, but I think those who would try to picture history based on these narrow views end up missing the forest for the trees. Here's another example. If you don't know the whole story of the Corps of Discovery under Lewis and Clark, you can get a skewed view if you only read about their encounter with the Blackfeet in Montana. You would get a skewed view in the other direction if you only read about their dealings with the Nez Perce. When you study history, do you first start with the macro? Before you read personal reminiscences of a historical event or period, do you read the broad history first?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aethelred Pioneer100© Member  Ye Olde Dead King
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Good point(s)! When looking into a subject that I don't know a lot about I tend to read the "wide sweep" book(s) first and then follow with those that are more focused. For example: I'll read the bio of William The Conqueror first, then read the book about the Norman Conquest of England. I'll follow those with books that deal with some specific aspect of those topics, such as something about the Norman archers or William's military skills et cetera.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
librtyhead Original500© Member 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I tend to find small things like photos,clothing,coins,diaries of everyday people that are not mentioned in history books and look for their personnel experiences. That seems to make it more real for me mostley 1760 and beyond. I like to read/hear the stories that are related to historical events in real time, from people who lived them, not how a history books portrays them. Kinda backwards but it makes it more realistic for me. When I find an old item or scrap of paper I kindof get wrapped up in detective work until the need is satisfied.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aethelred Pioneer100© Member Ye Olde Dead King
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
librtyhead wrote: I tend to find small things like photos,clothing,coins,diaries of everyday people that are not mentioned in history books and look for their personnel experiences. That seems to make it more real for me mostley 1760 and beyond. I like to read/hear the stories that are related to historical events in real time, from people who lived them, not how a history books portrays them. Kinda backwards but it makes it more realistic for me. When I find an old item or scrap of paper I kindof get wrapped up in detective work until the need is satisfied. I know what you are saying. I love artifacts. I have a small collection of non-coin artifacts that relate in some way to the Bible, things like pottery, oil lamps, even nails. I love the connection to the past those give me.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aethelred Pioneer100© Member Ye Olde Dead King
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Here is an example, a small bottle from the time of Herod:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
shirohniichan Original500© Member Obscurius per obscurum
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aethelred wrote: librtyhead wrote:I tend to find small things like photos,clothing,coins,diaries of everyday people that are not mentioned in history books and look for their personnel experiences. That seems to make it more real for me mostley 1760 and beyond. I like to read/hear the stories that are related to historical events in real time, from people who lived them, not how a history books portrays them. Kinda backwards but it makes it more realistic for me. When I find an old item or scrap of paper I kindof get wrapped up in detective work until the need is satisfied. Yea, verily. I enjoy seeing artifacts and hearing personal anecdotes, also. At the same time, I realize the very narrow view they give me of history can be misleading. For example, I watched a documentary about D-Day on the Military Channel on Saturday. One of the interviewees was a former Wehrmacht soldier. He told his story of reading his Bible and praying the rosary during the night before the attack. If we were to hear only his story, we'd imagine Nazi soldiers during WWII were innocent, Roman Catholic 17-year olds who merely did as they were told. We'd completely miss the death camps, brutal treatment of Slavs in Eastern Europe, and all kinds of other atrocities committed by the Nazis during the war.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sirlamre Pioneer100© Member Official Forum Troublemaker
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it's interesting what the differences in perspective are between East and West-- Somehow, Western historians focus SO much on the details of exactly who was there, what they did, which way they faced and who their opponents were... .. I find that Eastern historians may not even use the same details each time!! But-- they are focussed on the more abstract layers of the event--- the why someone did what they did, what the cultural background that led to their doing that was -- More than even just what environmental factors (poverty, power-seeking) were--- I heard someone say once that it'd be interesting to read an accurately and fully researched history of the US Civil War which had been written by an Asian precisely because it would be less about who was standing where and fired which way---and more about why their personality and culture and upbringing caused them to think and do what... Imagine answering THESE questions in 8th grade, instead of the ones we all saw: What were the cultural values of Virginia that made Lee who he was? What were the cultural values for McClellan that made him decide to do what he did? Grant? Lincoln? Imagine focussing FAR more on the _why_, and what was learned culturally, instead of militarily (of course, we still don't learn our lessons --- GW Bush's plan for Iraq is looking more and more like it was as well planned as the Charge of the Light Brigade or Pickett's Charge...) But who hasn't heard of the Charge of the Light Brigade? And who can say MORE about the reason that happened other than "British honor" What WAS it about honor in Britain that LED to that? How did honor get to that point of being that self-destructive over common sense? THOSE are interesting questions === and often very broad in their sweep--- I don't care what size bullets Pickett's men carried, or who made the horseshoes on the cavalry in the Light Brigade===== But I'm interested in why and how they had gotten culturally to the point of placing honor on such a high level that they'd all collectively DO something like that... And yet today--- most US soldiers would NOT do something like that--- knowing that it wasn't going to succeed in accomplishing anything...
 Armed with the power of Thy name nothing can ever hurt me, and with Thy love in my heart all the world's afflictions can in no wise alarm me. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sumnom Original500© Member 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sirlamre, there is an awful lot to tackle in your post but let's start first with your interest in "East" and "West." How did you come to reify these conceptual categories? How do you know where "East" ends and "West" begins? Second, can you provide some examples of those historians you might deem "Western" and "Eastern" and how their work illustrates your claims? Third, are you suggesting that Western historians have no interest beyond recording points of fact and do not engage in analysis and speculation while Eastern historians are not interested in emprical knowledge and prefer to remain in the realm of the cultural? Last edited on 05:52 am by sumnom |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sumnom Original500© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shiroh, it is by no means clear to me that macro-history is any less vulnerable to bias and selectivity than micro-history. Reading general histories doesn't really mean you are getting the whole story or even the most important parts of the story, assuming there even is "a story." In answer to your question, however, I tend to start with general histories and move to the more specific. The general history gives a conceptual framework within which to interpret the specific but there are times when the specific undermines the general. I really wouldn't want to say one is better than the other. There is a dialogue between the two and I would go so far as to posit that one cannot be understood and evaluated without the other.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sumnom Original500© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'll read the bio of William The Conqueror first, then read the book about the Norman Conquest of England. Isn't this a case of going from the specific to the general?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member  The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I, too, generally begin by trying to get a broad outline of my field of inquiry. (Selecting the boundaries of that field is itself a preliminary task, and it will often require later adjustment.) After that it is on to the back and forth of relating bits and scraps to the broad outline. Mind you, this is not a process of trying to arrive at some unified field of "truth." It is instead a project of gaining an appreciation for the conflicting perspectives.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sumnom Original500© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see developing an appreciation for the competing perspectives as part of the process of producing a perspective of one's own. Eventually statements must be made, provisional though they may be.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yes, that's true, sumnom. Finally, we do have to stop and make a provisional judgment. I compare it to a landing between flights of stairs. I guess that provisional character of historical judgments is what I'm trying to protect.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sumnom Original500© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is worthy of defense. There is no final word.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
shirohniichan Original500© Member Obscurius per obscurum
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sumnom wrote: In answer to your question, however, I tend to start with general histories and move to the more specific. The general history gives a conceptual framework within which to interpret the specific but there are times when the specific undermines the general. I really wouldn't want to say one is better than the other. There is a dialogue between the two and I would go so far as to posit that one cannot be understood and evaluated without the other. Agreed. I find an understanding of the general (the conceptual framework) is possible without the specific, but not necessarily vice versa. For example, if one has the big picture that the Nazis lost to the Soviets, one doesn't need to know of superior quality of German armor over Russian. If one merely focused on the qualitative superiority of weapons without knowing the outcome of the war, one could falsely assume the Nazis won. With a cumulative study of particulars one could come to build a general understanding (e.g. weighing qualitative superiority of weapons and personnel against quantitative superiority), however. I agree that specifics can undermine the general (it was the basis of my thesis attacking Bouwsma's understanding of John Calvin), but I am simply pointing out that focusing on one or two trees can make one miss the forest.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > Aethelred's History Chamber > Micro vs. macro views of history | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Site Supporters | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Posts Of The Day | Mock Forums | WowClassic | |
Themes and most mods done in collaboration with: WowClassic - powerful forum software with the best support service.
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez