Like Miguel and sbrown17, Stern's emphasis on 1492 as a year of contact* got me thinking about history vs historiography. We discussed in class the potential problem of this emphasis - how Olivia Harris documented that the indigenous people Stern discusses do not necessarily share the same cultural conception of a watershed moment - and it seems obvious to me that this stems from larger cultural differences like those discussed by Conrad&Demarest, like the nonlinear view of history.
While historiography is indeed "an inescapable part of lived 'history'" Stern's version of it is apparently based on the idea of history as made up of specific events (p. xlvi). And his angle, that of economics, seems to be based pretty strongly in Euro/Western philosophy (Marxist thought? later chapters should make this clearer) so I wonder what those not trained in European schools of thought would make of this book.
Of course, this all ties back to Restall and his highlighting of the fact that trying to achieve true objectivity is rather like Zeno's philosophical "dichotomy" paradox, in which one can never reach the destination.
(*Miguel has pointed out that Stern's argument is not that Columbus's arrival itself was a key moment in history, but I believe the fact remains that by emphasizing the year 1492 - with which Columbus is indelibly linked - he re-enforces its perceived significance.)
No comments:
Post a Comment