《黑人少女时代的全球历史》由Corinne T. Field和LaKisha Michelle Simmons编辑

IF 0.3 4区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY
J. Jordan-Zachery
{"title":"《黑人少女时代的全球历史》由Corinne T. Field和LaKisha Michelle Simmons编辑","authors":"J. Jordan-Zachery","doi":"10.1162/jinh_r_01954","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"carries and thus to “un-reify, or de-exceptionalize” Europeans’ path to the Industrial Revolution (22). The World the Plague Made is nonetheless useful in the multidisciplinary effort to re-think the role of pandemic disasters in human history. Belich claims, rightly, that economic history has not occupied sufficient analytical prominence among historians in general, though it is “the very guts of history. Whether they had food in their bellies, clothes on their backs, and roofs over their heads mattered to people in the past, and it should matter to us” (446). Most historians of medicine, infectious diseases, disaster studies, and public health still pay insufficient attention to the economic drivers of epidemic mortality in premodern eras, including the structural and differential costs of huge endemic health challenges. But Belich himself avoids entangling his own thesis with recent scholarship from historical demographers, zooming out instead to delineate an unsuccessful struggle to repair human numbers only during the “first plague era” to c. 1500 and a renewed impoverishment of home-front working populations in the “second plague era.” Laborers typically benefit in the aftermath of great epidemics. Does the shifting burden of morbidity and mortality to working people reflect a return of full economic power to investors and landowners? Or do regional great plagues and other disease curveballs determine winners and losers within the regions selectively felled by the Black Death? Belich is not convinced by recent environmental and climate histories that challenge his construction of a geographically uniform spread of Y. pestis in the initial Black Death wave, indifferent to local nonhuman ecological parameters. His characteristically granular arguments also unfold with a fascinating but fully eclectic reading of available documentary evidence constrained by selected scientific evidence. The text is unrelieved by graphic or tabular summation, partly compensated by splendid maps. Overall, his synthesis, resting on written evidence validated by some scientific “answers” to a set of long-standing historical debates about the Black Death, highlights the epistemological chasm between plague scientists and traditional plague historians.","PeriodicalId":46755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Global History of Black Girlhood edited by Corinne T. Field and LaKisha Michelle Simmons\",\"authors\":\"J. Jordan-Zachery\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/jinh_r_01954\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"carries and thus to “un-reify, or de-exceptionalize” Europeans’ path to the Industrial Revolution (22). The World the Plague Made is nonetheless useful in the multidisciplinary effort to re-think the role of pandemic disasters in human history. Belich claims, rightly, that economic history has not occupied sufficient analytical prominence among historians in general, though it is “the very guts of history. Whether they had food in their bellies, clothes on their backs, and roofs over their heads mattered to people in the past, and it should matter to us” (446). Most historians of medicine, infectious diseases, disaster studies, and public health still pay insufficient attention to the economic drivers of epidemic mortality in premodern eras, including the structural and differential costs of huge endemic health challenges. But Belich himself avoids entangling his own thesis with recent scholarship from historical demographers, zooming out instead to delineate an unsuccessful struggle to repair human numbers only during the “first plague era” to c. 1500 and a renewed impoverishment of home-front working populations in the “second plague era.” Laborers typically benefit in the aftermath of great epidemics. Does the shifting burden of morbidity and mortality to working people reflect a return of full economic power to investors and landowners? Or do regional great plagues and other disease curveballs determine winners and losers within the regions selectively felled by the Black Death? Belich is not convinced by recent environmental and climate histories that challenge his construction of a geographically uniform spread of Y. pestis in the initial Black Death wave, indifferent to local nonhuman ecological parameters. His characteristically granular arguments also unfold with a fascinating but fully eclectic reading of available documentary evidence constrained by selected scientific evidence. The text is unrelieved by graphic or tabular summation, partly compensated by splendid maps. Overall, his synthesis, resting on written evidence validated by some scientific “answers” to a set of long-standing historical debates about the Black Death, highlights the epistemological chasm between plague scientists and traditional plague historians.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46755,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interdisciplinary History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interdisciplinary History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_r_01954\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_r_01954","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从而使欧洲人走向工业革命的道路“非具体化或去特殊化”(22)。尽管如此,《瘟疫制造的世界》在重新思考流行病灾难在人类历史上的作用的多学科努力中是有用的。Belich正确地宣称,经济史在历史学家中并没有占据足够的分析地位,尽管它是“历史的核心。他们是否肚子里有食物,背上有衣服,头顶有屋顶,对过去的人来说很重要,对我们来说也应该很重要”(446)。大多数医学、传染病、灾难研究和公共卫生历史学家仍然没有充分关注前现代流行病死亡率的经济驱动因素,包括巨大的地方卫生挑战的结构性和差异性成本。但贝利奇本人避免将自己的论文与历史人口学家最近的学术成果纠缠在一起,而是缩小篇幅,描述了仅在“第一次瘟疫时代”至1500年左右修复人口数量的失败斗争,以及在“第二次瘟疫代年”国内一线工作人口的再次贫困。劳动者通常会在大流行病之后受益。发病率和死亡率负担向劳动人民转移是否反映了投资者和土地所有者全面恢复经济权力?或者,地区大瘟疫和其他疾病的曲线球决定了被黑死病选择性击倒的地区的赢家和输家?Belich不相信最近的环境和气候历史,这些历史挑战了他在最初的黑死病浪潮中构建的鼠疫杆菌在地理上均匀传播的结构,对当地的非人类生态参数漠不关心。他典型的细粒度论点也以引人入胜但完全兼收并蓄的阅读方式展开,阅读了受选定科学证据约束的现有文献证据。文本不受图形或表格总结的影响,部分由精美的地图补偿。总的来说,他的综合报告以书面证据为基础,通过对一系列关于黑死病的长期历史辩论的一些科学“答案”进行验证,突显了瘟疫科学家和传统瘟疫历史学家之间的认识论鸿沟。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Global History of Black Girlhood edited by Corinne T. Field and LaKisha Michelle Simmons
carries and thus to “un-reify, or de-exceptionalize” Europeans’ path to the Industrial Revolution (22). The World the Plague Made is nonetheless useful in the multidisciplinary effort to re-think the role of pandemic disasters in human history. Belich claims, rightly, that economic history has not occupied sufficient analytical prominence among historians in general, though it is “the very guts of history. Whether they had food in their bellies, clothes on their backs, and roofs over their heads mattered to people in the past, and it should matter to us” (446). Most historians of medicine, infectious diseases, disaster studies, and public health still pay insufficient attention to the economic drivers of epidemic mortality in premodern eras, including the structural and differential costs of huge endemic health challenges. But Belich himself avoids entangling his own thesis with recent scholarship from historical demographers, zooming out instead to delineate an unsuccessful struggle to repair human numbers only during the “first plague era” to c. 1500 and a renewed impoverishment of home-front working populations in the “second plague era.” Laborers typically benefit in the aftermath of great epidemics. Does the shifting burden of morbidity and mortality to working people reflect a return of full economic power to investors and landowners? Or do regional great plagues and other disease curveballs determine winners and losers within the regions selectively felled by the Black Death? Belich is not convinced by recent environmental and climate histories that challenge his construction of a geographically uniform spread of Y. pestis in the initial Black Death wave, indifferent to local nonhuman ecological parameters. His characteristically granular arguments also unfold with a fascinating but fully eclectic reading of available documentary evidence constrained by selected scientific evidence. The text is unrelieved by graphic or tabular summation, partly compensated by splendid maps. Overall, his synthesis, resting on written evidence validated by some scientific “answers” to a set of long-standing historical debates about the Black Death, highlights the epistemological chasm between plague scientists and traditional plague historians.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interdisciplinary History features substantive articles, research notes, review essays, and book reviews relating historical research and work in applied fields-such as economics and demographics. Spanning all geographical areas and periods of history, topics include: - social history - demographic history - psychohistory - political history - family history - economic history - cultural history - technological history
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信