What aspect of the way that historians think is the most unfamiliar to you? Well this is actually a fairly easy question to answer as I am an anthropology major. I find the rigidity of their thinking to be the most unfamiliar aspect of the way that historians go about their research.

As an anthropology major, we are taught to think very holistically about everything and are encouraged to come up with out own ways of looking at the world and cultures but in all of the history classes I have taken (and I have taken a fair amount as for a while I was wanting to get a history minor with a concentration on East Asia) you were always forced to stick to credible sources and were never encouraged to try and look at a historical event in a different light.

Now, because I do very much enjoy history, I can objectively see why this way of going about things is necessary; to get the facts straight and out to the world. But on the other hand, I feel like historians could benefit from thinking about their work in a more holistic anthropological light at times, if just to give them a new perspective.

I just find it unfamiliar because after five years taking anthropology classes, I cannot imagine not looking at the world in an anthropological light anymore. Anything cultural is more than fair game for looking at it in that manner and anything historical someone would look, even if it was only 20 years ago, will have a slightly different culture that it is apart of so it seems silly to not try some of the more open-minded paradigms you find in anthropology.