Are You Convinced by the Arguments for “Big History” If so, Why? If Not, Why Not?

1135 Words5 Pages
No, I am not convinced by the arguments for “Big History” put forward by David Christian. I have to disagree with David Christian’s arguments for "Big History" as I do not think that the reason to why people learn History includes the concepts contained within the study of "Big History". More specifically I do not agree that the study of history should go past that of ‘Human History’, therefore I will argue that it is more important and effective to learn this type of history than that of ‘Big History’. To prove my point I will give a rebuttal against what David Christian says for ‘Big History’. I am also not convinced that the concept of 'Big History' is applicable to the understanding of human history or that of 'Small History'. Firstly, what is history? and why do we learn history? History can be said to be the study of how the world has evolved by past events. It is a record of human experiences. Therefore without the knowledge of our ‘human’ past, there would be little direction in our society as we learn form the past so that we may strive for a better future, hence the reason for learning history. However, ‘Big History’ is defined as looking past those scales, covered in ‘world history’, larger than those of the nation state or the particular civilization, so therefore ‘Big History’ tries to look at the past on even bigger scales, up to the largest scales of all, those of cosmology. Big history tries to look at the past on all scales, from those of conventional history up to those of cosmology. (David Christian). That being said, Big History is the study of everything past. However this is not one the reason why people learn history as stated above. So, 'Big History' being the study of everything past and 'Small History' being the study of each of the branches of history in it self, which one can better, improve society today? The only way to answer such
Open Document