It is clear from the literature on the topic that the level of detail in an article or book is an important consideration in the writing of transnational history. The two examples of transnational history that we read this week, Tonio Andrade’s A Chinese Farmer, Two African Boys, and a Warlord and Heather Streets-Salter’s The Local Was Global: The Singapore Mutiny of 1915 were somewhat similar in many ways – they both concerned specific and short-term events on islands in Asia, and interactions between individuals of several different cultures. The difference in scale between these articles, however is vastly different. While Andrade’s article is very detailed, he seems to be attempting to prove a point: that the writing of history does not need to concern itself with the great ‘so what’ question – why does this matter in the grand scale of things? While Streets-Salter’s article concerns itself with events that are on a similar size to those that occurred on Formosa in Andrade’s article, Streets-Salter instead chooses to zoom far out from the events taking place in Singapore and examines the range of reactions that occurred on a global level, and situates the mutiny against the backdrop of the global zeitgeist in 1915.
I would argue that while Andrade is clearly trying to prove a point, his article suffers for it. Andrade’s style is clearly a marked departure from most historical scholarship – the article is written with a strong focus on narrative style, it ends with a somewhat speculative “what-if?” question, and it does not really concern itself with the wider global context beyond the interesting, but ultimately insignificant story it tells. I think that these departures are refreshing. I very much enjoyed reading the article, and I think that its unique style makes it an engaging and intriguing read, but by not focussing on the wider repercussions and context, Andrade’s article loses a lot of the punch he created by making it so different from the majority of historical literature. Even despite this, Andrade attempts to emphasise a central thrust of his argument – that during war, friendships across cultural lines become harder to maintain. However, this argument is somewhat obvious, and it comes across as something of a substitution for situating it in a wider historical context. The light speculation towards the end of the article also reaches into dubious territory, but Andrade quickly pulls himself back by emphasising on what did happen rather than what could have.
In short, Streets-Salter’s article is more adept with handling the scope of a small-scale event by situating it within a large-scale context. By doing so, she opens the event up to much more historical analysis than Andrade can afford with his approach. This is, to me, a real shame, as Andrade’s article is unique and something of a joy to read. Under greater scrutiny, however, by choosing not to acknowledge the wider context of these events, Andrade’s article becomes an interesting story, but much less useful as a piece of academic historical writing.