Histiography: U.S. vs Mexican history Methods

While doing research, I found an article on histography about the differences of Mexican and U.S historians on Mexican Colonial history.

The difference is very interesting: Mexicans mainly do archival research, while Americans do a lot of theoretical research.

Why don't we discuss both methods? What are the advantages of one method over the other?

I cannot publish the whole thing due to copyright issues, but I am including a thought provoking section and the reference info for those who have access to databases or a research library.

Of course, if you ask questions about the position of the author, I can answer them :)

The move to this cultural social history is marked in recent scholarship on early Mexico and in the case I present here, in Michoacan, in western Mexico. The sharp divide between theory and practice is also highlighted in a comparison between recent scholarship on Michoacan from Mexico and from North America. Indeed, one of the very central issues of the debate on the cultural turn has been on the direction of research itself. Mexican scholars, especially those of the colonial period, have tended to be much less influenced by or interested in theoretical models. Rather, as a group Mexican scholars have tended to focus heavily on their archival findings with relatively little use of anthropological, political, or critical theory. On the other hand, North American practitioners of colonial Mexican history have tended to draw on wide theoretical models to buttress their archival findings, which are occasionally less substantive than their Mexican counterparts. A second important issue comes into play in the overall historiography: there is very little scholarly interplay between Mexican and North American practitioners.

Journal of Social History, Winter 2005 v39 i2 p531(8)

    Review essay: recent work on early Western Mexico and the revival of the Black Legend. (Book Review) Martin Nesvig.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2005 Journal of Social History