'David Armitage ['Horizons of History', History Australia 12, 1 (April 2015), 224] argues that "armed with transnational and transtemporal, historians can be guardians against parochial perspectives and endemic short-termism.” Do you agree with Armitage that i) historians can have these effects and ii) that they should take on this role? “Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get an original essay Over the past few decades, the debate over whether history should be conducted and observed at the micro or macro level has prevailed among historians. Some historians, such as David Armitage, argue that history should be observed on a mass global scale to provide greater insight into politics and governance. However, other historians, such as Allan Megill, argue that observing history at a micro level across communities and individuals allows for a more specific and deeper truth and understanding of the context in which we live . This essay will argue that while looking at history through transnational and transtemporal perspectives can be useful for global politics and governance, the ultimate role of the historian should be to seek truth among communities and individuals in context broader part of our history. First, this essay will begin by briefly describing Armitage's theory and the theory surrounding "big" history. Second, this essay will explain why it is almost impossible to write a universal history and why the study of history should aim to seek truth and bring communities to life. Third, this essay will then discuss the role of the historian in understanding individual roles within the broader context of history, rather than in creating a generalized universal history. First, David Armitage is one of many historians who argue that history should be observed through a transnational and transtemporal lens. Writing universal history means seeing history from a much broader perspective, observing the patterns that emerge, and changing the way we think about the issues we study at more conventional levels. Universal history, also known as long duration, is history that spans hundreds or even thousands of years, over a very long period of time. For centuries, history has been more or less a practical activity, a guide to public life for rulers, their advisors and citizens and a teaching of life philosophy by example. This was the role of the historian until the last half century, when Armitage argues that he has lost his public and forward-looking mission. Looking at history through transnational and transtemporal perspectives is to reject the national framework that has structured so much historical writing since its professionalization in the 19th century, and it is to revolt against conventional periodizations. According to Christian, viewing history from a universal perspective allows individuals and communities to see themselves as part of the evolving story of an entire universe with a clearer view of humanity as a whole. The role of the historian, according to Armitage, is to shatter this myth of international politics that we have always existed as states and that the individual is subordinate to the state, by looking at the bigger picture. The longer perspectives offered by this broader vision ofhistory are relevant to our current situation in policy decisions. By extending our inquiries over so many decades, centuries, and even millennia, we can hope to understand the context of our current situation. Armitage argues that politicians and government need broad, long-term views that only historians can provide. Ultimately, it is important to look at history through a universal lens to make policy decisions and provide overall context. However, this should not be the ultimate role of the historian. However, writing a universal story is close to impossible, because even these stories contain biases and leave out certain perspectives and stories. The total story cannot be captured on a large canvas, humans must be studied in microcosm to fully capture how humanity works. Megill argues that those who attempted to write universal history ultimately failed, simply because they skewed their writing and focused on only one type of universal history, whether political, religious, or national. Although it would be useful to produce a universal history, these attempts to offer prescriptions for policy and future action rely on very narrow and generalized conceptions of how human beings have existed and exist in the world. , when the story is more complex and individualistic than the general themes and themes. motives. Methodological disillusionment and the use of scientific methods to write history, primarily quantifiable methods, lead to the loss of the emotion and individuality that makes history writing so important. One of the criticisms of microhistory is generalization: the emphasis on individual action prevents them from considering the whole story. range of historical phenomena, applying these small-scale findings to the larger story without context. However, the ultimate role of the historian should be an existential commitment to viewing the past as relevant to present and future life, not only from the perspective of government, but also of communities and individuals. History would not exist without an existential commitment, which is why historians should commit to the truth and to a community, already present or to be created. For example, Gardens highlights the importance of gender history in providing agency and a new identity for women in the present; Women were previously marginalized in historical writing, but by making a place for them in history, it highlighted their importance and role in society, and also applies to women today. The goal of historians should be to discover the truth and contribute to progress by transcending their own biases and prejudices by behaving like scientists to help us see the world we live in within the broad context of human history, rather than creating a generalized universal history. Third, the role of historians should be to understand individual roles in the broader context of history. While universal history focuses on common themes and patterns, microhistory is able to connect the dots in a broader context by focusing on individual cases. Microhistory revived the genre of historical writing as an art and thus contributed to the historical education of the general public outside the walls of academia, making history more relevant and accessible. Personal and short-term stories offer greater insight into the larger context of the story; While the “great.