tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post109520660945480820..comments2024-02-20T17:40:21.618-05:00Comments on jeremy freese's weblog: from obvious to "obvious" and back againjeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12755662766163119607noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-1095807507307538822004-09-21T18:58:00.000-04:002004-09-21T18:58:00.000-04:00Oh, thank goodness for the previous comment. I've...Oh, thank goodness for the previous comment. I've been trying to figure out the correct way to spell cliometric for a few days, and was waaayyyy off the mark.Corriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06799143877096841943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-1095275351984776212004-09-15T15:09:00.000-04:002004-09-15T15:09:00.000-04:00Fogel's Railroads and American economic growth may...Fogel's <I>Railroads and American economic growth</I> may be a better example of 'problematizing the obvious,' in the likely popular view and the professionally accepted view -- railroads were important to U.S. development -- were better aligned. See <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eh.net%2Fbookreviews%2Flibrary%2Fdavis.shtml">this this review</A> by Lance Davis at eh.net. <br /><br />As for how the obvious was problematized in advance of Fogel and Engerman, it's my recollection (from having read the book about 12 years ago) that their best points were scored against pre-'cliometric' economic historiography of slavery that had relatively little formal economic content -- assessments of the productivity of enslaved and free southern blacks more on overtly or covertly racist stereotypes rather than crop-yield data, etc. (In the case of <I>Railroads</I>, Fogel similarly had a field day with predecessors who conflated casual correlations between the expansion of the railroad network and 19th century economic development with causation.)Tom Bozzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05853926747746938925noreply@blogger.com