http://www.leisurelyhistorian.net/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-history-part-ii-atheoretical-history Comics, Cartoons, Computers, and Cultural History... Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:51:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.leisurelyhistorian.net/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-history-part-ii-atheoretical-history/comment-page-1#comment-66 Ken Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:44:06 +0000 http://leisurelyhistorian.net/?p=36#comment-66 Maybe it is too simple to bear mentioning, but I though Black did a nice job of tracing the different ways maps serve political interests, particularly with regards to nationalism. Maybe this is just a given to our graduate student minds, but I enjoyed watching someone actually evidence the idea rather than suppose it. Maybe it is too simple to bear mentioning, but I though Black did a nice job of tracing the different ways maps serve political interests, particularly with regards to nationalism. Maybe this is just a given to our graduate student minds, but I enjoyed watching someone actually evidence the idea rather than suppose it.

]]> http://www.leisurelyhistorian.net/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-history-part-ii-atheoretical-history/comment-page-1#comment-65 Lee Ann Ghajar Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:55:23 +0000 http://leisurelyhistorian.net/?p=36#comment-65 I agree with you on your theory on theory. It is part of trying to bring coherence and a kind of order to almost any kind of presentation, actually. White was hard for me (read, Huh, what's that you say?) I'm trying to figure out Black--well not a lot--but historians like him who seem to hold good standing in the field, and wonder if there's a category for those who collate facts well, but who cannot (or don't, anyway) deal with the conceptual framework of their facts. Black did this as well in his history of atlases. I don't like it a lot--it strikes me, actually, that Black, for example, is doing what he writes about--assembling a set of unrelated facts among which there may be excessive emphasis on some, unrelated selections, absences, gaps and then advising careful reading in order, as you point out, to form one's own theory. I agree with you on your theory on theory. It is part of trying to bring coherence and a kind of order to almost any kind of presentation, actually. White was hard for me (read, Huh, what’s that you say?) I’m trying to figure out Black–well not a lot–but historians like him who seem to hold good standing in the field, and wonder if there’s a category for those who collate facts well, but who cannot (or don’t, anyway) deal with the conceptual framework of their facts. Black did this as well in his history of atlases. I don’t like it a lot–it strikes me, actually, that Black, for example, is doing what he writes about–assembling a set of unrelated facts among which there may be excessive emphasis on some, unrelated selections, absences, gaps and then advising careful reading in order, as you point out, to form one’s own theory.

]]>