Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Cameron Blevins wrote the blog post “Digital History’s Perpetual Future Tense.” In the blog post he compared when historians tried to use quantitative digital history as a way to explain history and the newer use of public history as a way to explain history through a digital format. Each format has a unique outlook but only one of the two digital histories have been accepted by the majority of historians.

Of the two digital histories the use of quantitative history in digital history was the least looked upon favorably. The reason for this was that the numbers that were used to make the arguments was reducing the actual history into an experiment that could tested and recreated. This lead to digital historians distancing themselves from explaining history through mere numbers. On the other hand the use of public history in digital history has had a much better review from historians. Even if digital public history does not use the argumentative structure as the main structure for how it is dispersed. As explained by the National Council on Public History, “public history prioritizes “an interest and commitment to making history relevant and useful in the public sphere.”” I agree when mckenndy21 stated that public history is “one of the most influential sources of history reaching out to a much broader and diverse audience than any other sort of humanity topic or reading.” Between quantitative history and public history, public history has helped advance digital history as a valuable tool for historians but as Blevins said towards the end of his blog post digital history needs to actively be used to make new arguments for history instead of just being talked about.