Honestly, I’m a bit lost. I feel like everyone has found their footing or starting to get a grasp on their long projects, or at least found an idea, whereas I have absolutely no idea. I really liked Morven’s ideas on her project proposal, especially the two ideas on Hernando Colon and Gian Vincenzo Pinelli. I think her approach is very clever, taking on Tonio Andrade’s perspective of a series of micro-histories. I may follow a similar approach as I thought ‘A Chinese Farmer, Two African Boys, and a Warlord: Toward a Global Microhistory’ was a very intriguing article.
However, the extent to which something is considered ‘micro’ can be a bit lost on me, as I find it difficult to assess what can be considered an ‘anecdote’ or what can be considered as ‘history’. When taking Konrad Lawson’s module last semester MO3055: The History of History of East Asia, we differentiated what an anecdote meant and what history meant, but can these differentiations be applied in micro-history?
Perhaps I could even take a different approach, rather than approaching the essay like Andrade did. I could focus on one aspect or person and look at the different effects and contexts globally. For example, taking from my other module this semester (MO3524, Popular Music, Culture and Society: The United States and Britain 1955-80), I could focus on the effects of Rock ‘n’ Roll (or specifically Elvis Presley) in global contexts, is there a difference between how rock n roll affected different areas in Asia compared to the US?
Or something completely different such as discussing the Opium Wars and its shared history and different perspectives from China and the UK. Shared histories deeply interest me, such as studying the different points of views from Japan and China on the Nanjing Massacre.
I desperately need guidance. Wow.