Big histories in this sense: most standard school textbooks, Graeber, Harari, Zinn, Diamond, Toynbee, James Scott, Fukuyama, Arendt,... all revisionist, historicist, and “wrong” in a shallow sense. Some are slightly redeemed by making a larger metahistorical point or two.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Ironically James Scott manages to legibilize history through the very act of using illegibility of reality as a critical lens on institutional actions. This shows up more in his other books like against the grain.
Show this thread -
When I read history, I try to pick sources that are pre-theoretical. They’re just inventorying the events in a place and time, carving reality at the joints as best they can, compensating for implicit theoretical biases as best they can. No active agenda besides curiosity.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Big history go brrr. And it develops curiosity in little history. It did for me at least.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is a great thread, right here.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.