Talk:Longue durée
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ranke
[edit]Is ranke really a longue duree historian? Isn't he more event- focused, and, in this respect, a contrasting figure to burckhardt? Sergevan (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Settler colonialism section
[edit]I'm concerned that the section on 'settler colonialism' isn't particularly representative of how longue durée history works, and certainly receives undue weight in this article. I haven't pored over the edit history, but it feels like one person has inserted their particular hobbyhorse into the article in a way that distorts the reader's understanding of this style of history. In particular, I would think the focus on the ideological background of colonialism over a few centuries would better fit into the Annalists' middle scale of history, not the longue durée. Meanwhile, Braudel's emphasis on climate, geography, and very slow-moving economic trends is not really reflected here. I will add a reference to volume 1 of The Mediterranean, and will maybe come back to the article when I have more time, but anyone else with an interest might want to step in as well. --Dalmatic (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Dalmatic, the section was added in April 2019 by a student on a wikiedu.org course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GarretNourse. It feels dumped in because it was. Fences&Windows 08:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- The section on Settler Colonialism is clearly out of place here. The concept of a longue durée historical method has nothing in particular to do with that subject, and it seems to have been added as a political statement. That’s unfortunate because it detracts from the intriguing historiography that surrounds the real topic of the article. I’d recommend it’s removal entirely. Sychonic (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)