Micro history gained prominence as a school of historical thought during the 1960s and 70s. It essentially seeks to attribute worldwide historical events to smaller, seemingly insignificant occurrences on a micro level. There is a great debate surrounding the effectiveness
Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that these words are basically the same? And also like…so micro means small, right? Which means that macro means big? But then on a camera, right, there is a macro setting.
I remember doing a module on twentieth century China in year 10 at high school and noted the strong emphasis that my teacher placed on how the state strongly influenced what people read and thought. The primary sources that we
History is made up of microhistories. If you stand a distance from the tapestry, it might appear that the individual threads make up sweeping stripes –grand movements; irresistible forces— but upon closer inspection, it is apparent that each ‘thread’ has
The following blogpost will consider two aspects of our readings for Tuesday. First, I’ll be talking about utilising microhistory, and its many benefits in historical analysis. Second, I’ll consider the reading regarding the Singapore Mutiny of 1915, and will consider
Scale is a term that is intrinsically linked to the processes of transnational history. With close links to that of micro-history, scale in the transnational perspective – another crucial component of transnational history – is centred on an inherent fear
First of all, I love microhistory. When I saw that one of our readings for this coming week was Tonio Andrade’s “A Chinese Farmer, Two African Boys; and a Warlord: Toward a Global Microhistory” I was enthusiastic to see how
How accurate does history need to be in order to be valid? How accurate can it be? In the face of the concept of transnational history, and the implications that some of its wider-reaching premises bring to bear upon much
So in The Guest Worker Question in Post War Germany, Rita Chin focuses a lot on Aras Ören, a Turkish migrant to West Germany who created almost an entirely new category of writing through his literature. Obviously there were lots
Although transnational history, by its very name would suggest a nation is necessary in its premise, does it actually need a nation to provide a comprehensive historical narrative? Or instead, does it simply need a border within which to work.
Over the past couple of years, an interest towards studying about the American Revolution has skyrocketed, with the famed production of Hamilton at Broadway, which teaches American history through catchy tunes, or the presidency of Donald Trump, which encourages students to
One of the main benefits of transnational history is that it encourages the historian to look outside national borders for their research. Indeed, as history developed as a subject in the nineteenth century alongside the rise of nation states in
Patricia Clavin references transnational history as a historical approach that functions as a “loose-fitting garment.” She emphasizes that world history and globalization are ‘as much about fragmentation as unity.’ In my pursuit of developing an apt understanding of transnational history,
Transnational history is a relatively new term, which, as Bayly suggests, has not become relevant to the historical narrative until after world war one. This school of thought looks at a larger global picture which have helped to shape history.
Something that’s come up a lot in the reading I’ve done so far is the lack of clear definition surrounding transnational history. Of course, everything is subjective, nothing is real, the points don’t mater etc etc etc – but still,