Re: I was into cultural and religious history - Edit 1
Before modification by Camilla at 08/04/2010 02:52:31 PM
What if black pepper had been an indigenous plant in Europe and/or the Middle East? Not only does that impact a small but important part of medieval trade - the most long-distance one - but it also is of crucial importance to the European discovery journeys of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, and hence to the entire concept of colonialism.
Or what if potatoes or tobacco had not been imported from South America.
Tobacco was from North America/the Caribbean, or at least the specific species that are smoked by most people
Of course, if tobacco was not a cash crop, my family would never have been wealthy in the early 19th century (nor would they have lost most everything between the Panic of 1837 and the Civil War
)Yesyes. Details. I come from Norway. Everywhere that is warm enough for tobacco growing is per definition SOUTH.
And, of course, part of the scenario would have to be that it were never grown by European immigrants either.
It's okay. I always think "up there" for any region where snow lies on the ground more than a handful of days a year, if that much.
And then there's that scenario if Songhai had not been weakened by invasions from the Sahara...
Now you are back on political history.
I consider the social vacuum created by the collapse of a strong polity in the Sahel to be responsible in part for the atrocity known as the transatlantic slave trade. The social upheaval that was unleashed is something that certainly affects hundreds of millions directly and almost as many indirectly today.
That being said, some of my vocabulary would have been different if this hadn't taken place.
But that is the case with most of the political events mentioned in this thread. The interest lies in the social ramifications. The collapse of a major African kingdom is definitely a political event.
Of course, I like to think my old studies, grounded firmly in the late Weimar/pre-WWII Nazi Era, were not political in nature, although that contradictory regime certainly loomed large over everything I was researching about religious programs during that time
I have always preferred political history. I think that is why I did not keep studying it. It became all about fishermen and farmers, and I couldn't care less. I like the wars and revolutions and the intrigues much more than the statistics and boring. In theory social history is good, but in practice it puts me to sleep.
While it draws upon some of the same methodologies as new social history, the areas of research are much more fascinating. Ever read Carlo Ginzburg's The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmology of a 16th Century Miller? Still one of the best microhistories produced and it dealt with a relatively educated heretic who devised a cosmology that both fit in with his times and ran very counter to it. I had to read that in my freshman honors Western Civ class and that book convinced me that I was in the right field. Also, cultural histories yielded interesting discussions about English wife swaps and "sales," some of which lasted until the late 19th century. How can stuffy political maneuverings top that?
Oh, I don't mind cultural history when it centers on individuals, but because there is often so little to latch on to when it comes to illiterate farmers and fishermen (which Norwegian history has to deal with for most of its ... history), it all becomes numbers. And numbers do not work in my brain.
You should review that book properly and convince me to read it