Regarding my use of “AD”, or Anno Domini, the (sometimes politically controve (.)ĢJust two years later, David Northrup’s insightful presidential address to the World History Association (WHA) both refuted and confirmed some of the previous author’s observations.
In contrast to the avid attention paid to the globalization debates by other social scientists, he notes that “world historians somewhat silently question whether the process of globalization is new at all”. Reviewing two works by non-historians, he urges his colleagues not to write off their efforts as some descent into theory or a “literary exercise”, and reminds his readers that “globalization is about growing interaction in world history, which is our main object of study, after all”. 1 He attributes this to what he describes as “their ‘natural’aversion to post-modernism, latest fashions and hypes”. “World historians”, he observes, “do not seem to have much interest in the debate on globalization”. One of the books under consideration in Oonk’s review – edited by Brigit Meyer an (.)ġIn 2002, a contributor to the Journal of World History noted the apparent ambivalence of the journal’s readers regarding theoretical approaches to contemporary globalization.
0 kommentar(er)
