| Big History arose from a desire to go beyond the specialized and self-contained fields that emerged in the 20th century. It tries to grasp history as a whole, looking for common themes across multiple time scales in history.[23][24] Conventional history typically begins with the invention of writing, and is limited to past events relating directly to the human race. Big Historians point out that this limits study to the past 5,000 years and neglects the much longer time when humans existed on Earth. Henry Kannberg sees Big History as being a product of the Information Age, a stage in history itself following speech, writing, and printing.[25] Big History covers the formation of the universe, stars, and galaxies, and includes the beginning of life as well as the period of several hundred thousand years when humans were hunter-gatherers. It sees the transition to civilization as a gradual one, with many causes and effects, rather than an abrupt transformation from uncivilized static cavemen to dynamic civilized farmers.[26] An account in The Boston Globe describes what it polemically asserts to be the conventional "history" view: Early humans were slump-shouldered, slope-browed, hairy brutes. They hunkered over campfires and ate scorched meat. Sometimes they carried spears. Once in a while they scratched pictures of antelopes on the walls of their caves. That's what I learned during elementary school, anyway. History didn't start with the first humans—they were cavemen! The Stone Age wasn't history; the Stone Age was a preamble to history, a dystopian era of stasis before the happy onset of civilization, and the arrival of nifty developments like chariot wheels, gunpowder, and Google. History started with agriculture, nation-states, and written documents. History began in Mesopotamia's Fertile Crescent, somewhere around 4000 BC. It began when we finally overcame our savage legacy, and culture surpassed biology.[26] | Dear American,
On March 9, President Biden quietly signed the death warrant on American freedom.
| | | Big History, in contrast to conventional history, has more of an interdisciplinary basis.[11] Advocates sometimes view conventional history as "microhistory" or "shallow history", and note that three-quarters of historians specialize in understanding the last 250 years while ignoring the "long march of human existence."[2] However, one historian disputed that the discipline of history has overlooked the big view, and described the "grand narrative" of Big History as a "clichรฉ that gets thrown around a lot."[2] One account suggested that conventional history had the "sense of grinding the nuts into an ever finer powder."[22] It emphasizes long-term trends and processes rather than history-making individuals or events.[2] Historian Dipesh Chakrabarty of the University of Chicago suggested that Big History was less politicized than contemporary history because it enables people to "take a step back."[2] It uses more kinds of evidence than the standard historical written records, such as fossils, tools, household items, pictures, structures, ecological changes and genetic variations.[2] Few people paid attention when he enacted Executive Order 14067. Buried in his Order is one specific sentence I predict will be remembered as the first move… …in the most treacherous act by a sitting President in the history of our republic. Because it could set the stage for… Legal government surveillance of all US citizens… Total control over your bank accounts and purchases… And the ability to silence all dissenting voices for good. It's already underway. While we still have time… >>Go here to see the truth about Biden's Executive Order 14067. To our freedom, Best | | | Matt Insley Publisher, Paradigm Press P.S. Part of Biden's order calls for urgent research into a digital "spyware" currency which could eventually replace the U.S. dollar. Like crypto, but 24-7 trackable and traceable. Here's what this could mean for your savings. | | | Criticism of Big History[edit] Critics of Big History, including sociologist Frank Furedi, have deemed the discipline an "anti-humanist turn of history."[27] The Big History narrative has also been challenged for failing to engage with the methodology of the conventional history discipline. According to historian and educator Sam Wineburg of Stanford University, Big History eschews the interpretation of texts in favor of a purely scientific approach, thus becoming "less history and more of a kind of evolutionary biology or quantum physics."[28] Others have pointed out that such criticisms of Big History removing the human element or not following a historical methodology seem to derive from observers who have not sufficiently looked into what Big History actually does, with most courses having one-third or half devoted to humanity, with the concept of increasing complexity giving humanity an important place, and with methods in the natural sciences being innately historical since they also attempt to gather evidence in order to craft a narrative.[29] Currently, the Big History is a consolidated academic field that is giving rise to new views and epistemological approaches, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean, whose decolonial vision of history, economics and Science has opened new questions. In this sense, the transdisciplinary and biomimetics research of Javier Collado [30]represents an ecology of knowledge between scientific knowledge and the ancestral wisdom of native peoples, such as Indigenous peoples in Ecuador. This transdisciplinary vision integrates and unifies diverse epistemes that are in, between, and beyond the scientific disciplines, that is, it includes ancestral wisdom, spirituality, art, emotions, mystical experiences and other dimensions forgotten in the history of science, specially by the positivist approach. In approaching the Big History from the complexity sciences, the transdisciplinary methodology seeks to understand the interconnections of the human race with the different levels of reality that co-exist in nature and in the cosmos,[31] and this includes mystical and spiritual experiences, very present in the rituals of shamanism with ayahuasca and other sacred plants. The common denominator of all indigenous and aboriginal ancestral worldviews is the spiritual and ecological conception that structures their social organizations, which are in harmony and respect with the different forms of life that exist on our planet. [32] In the same way that Fritjof Capra carried out an analysis of the parallels between modern physics and Eastern mysticism, the teaching of the Big History in universities of Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, and Argentina is nourished by the worldview of their ancestor to analyze the parallels between the scientific discoveries and the original knowledge of the native and indigenous peoples. Another criticism of Big History made by associate professor Ian Hesketh,[33] is that it mixes up science disciplines using holistic views that is very close to mythic or religious approaches, without mentioning this in its narrative. |
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar