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

In Cameron Blevins’ Digital History Perpetual Future Tense article he starts off with the introduction and recent advancements of what is Digital History. He talks about how historians are given a new way of examining things through and explore. The field offers a large opening to new studies and making new ways of collecting data. The problem with Digital History integrating into mainstream Academic History is the platform of their based on. Most Academic History is based around making arguments in written works where as Digital History has moved towards the ability to digitize and centralize parts of history to make interpretations about historical events and people. Blevins then goes into the reasons that digital history created a gap from the academic side of history and how they can fix it. He suggests having the digital historians focus more on arguments because it is a fundamental for the field. Instead of focusing on the Quantitative History, which in itself had a lot of problems that helped separate digital history from the rest of the field, it needs to come back to the roots of historical thinking and methods.

The analysis of the Digital History field by Blevins’ reminds me of the way Joan Scott analyzes Gender as a Historical Theory in her article “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis.” As jessicabode explains in her blog post on the article, Gender can be closely related to Marxism as a theory and often intertwine. Just like Digital History and Public History are related, with Digital history using Public history as a type of template for its studies and advancement.