Author: Bernhard Struck

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,

In our first class, one of the things that struck me was how transnational history is arguably not all that new. In the early twentieth century historians sought to analyze history outside strict national borders.[1] Last year, I studied a

Now that we have had our last class for the module, and done our presentations it feels quite strange that we still have so far to go in terms of the work for this module. Having spent so many weeks

(NB: By fish, I obviously mean the historiographical and methodological enlightenment that has happened over the past eleven or so weeks. However, that doesn’t make for a particularly catchy title.) Like the two or three posts below mine on the