a.rev

My first cycle as a PhD applicant hasn't gone well (rejected from 2/3 places I applied to and am awaiting the 3rd), but I've certainly learned some lessons so I thought I would share. 
 
I'm going to echo mvlchicago and say that if you're applying to a Latin American/Asian/Atlantic World/etc. program but have yet to step foot in your proposed country of interest you're going to have to be spectacular in all other aspects of your application. I was forewarned by my adviser and one of my POIs that it would be difficult to be accepted without this experience. Aside from not having done archival research in these countries, there is also a fear that students have a romantic or idealized view of what these areas will be like and when it doesn't live up to that expectation they will drop out of the program. (I'm speaking in terms of Africa here but I'm sure it applies most everywhere.)
 
Archival research. One of my LOR writers told me that I would struggle because I did not have archival research experience. Although others told me that it shouldn't be that big of a deal, I'm realizing now that it actually is. If your university is like mine and doesn't really have archives you will need to find a way to get to the archives that are relevant for your topic. Apply for funding, couch surf, whatever it takes.
 
Making your SOP too personal. I talked with one of my LOR about my personal reasons for pursuing history and my path to getting where I am today. He suggested I include it in my SOP and I'm no regretting my decision. I should have focused more on academics and only talked about my personal life when it came time to explain a two year gap between undergrad and my graduate program. 
 
Choosing a sample that showcases your foreign language ability. My paper used primary sources but they were all in English, (which was relevant to the topic) I should have chosen one that showed I could read another language. Also, submitting a sample unrelated to your field or area of interest. I should have submitted my prospectus or a chapter from my unfinished thesis. No, I haven't passed my defense but if I want to study something on the Atlantic world, I should probably not submit something on the Japanese empire. I didn't follow this advice because I didn't want to I didn't want to submit something I felt was "incomplete."
 
If you cannot avoid this, say you are switching topics, make sure your sample shows your strengths as a researcher. (Neither of the above are my topics but just examples.) One of my LOR did this, he switched from studying something like Ozark folk music to the emergence of radio in the Mexican revolution. He was able to do this because he had a strong writing sample that showed his skills in archival research, but also because he built a relationship with his potential department. Additionally, he took a chance on an up and coming Latin American department and it worked out extremely well for him. (He has 2 articles just published, a book coming out next year and another in the works. Additionally he procured a TT position right out of his program.) 
 
Lastly, don't be discouraged by a bad cycle. There are always things you can do to better yourself. Apply for funding so you can complete research in your field. If your university doesn't offer these or you find out too late, apply for Fulbright's program to teach English. I didn't find out about a middle eastern studies grant offered by my university until last semester. Instead of defending over the summer I've decided to defend in the fall so that I can be eligible for the grant. If this doesn't happen I'm considering applying for a Fulbright (it will be the first year we have one up and running at my current school). The point is that if you really want this, you should constantly be working towards it. Don't take the year off as a vacation, take the year off as an opportunity to put all available effort into bettering your application, and building a relationship with your prospective departments by going to conferences and reaching out. As I said, I haven't had a good cycle but I've learned a lot. Academia is tough and rejection is a natural part of it, you just have to grow thick skin and keep on going. 

The world does not exist in a vacuum nor is it relegated to "the march of time." I think there is plenty of room in departments for "traditional" historians but the prevalence of us who focus on history interwined with other disciplines is also on the rise. I think you're assuming that because more departments are admitting these types of students they are not admitting tradition historians, instead of considering that perhaps the admission rates reflect ratio of "traditional" historians to environmental/gender/etc. If only 10% of the applicants study what you have defined as traditional does that mean they should constitute 100% of the department? I don't think so. The idea that we need remain in the archives and write histories that exclude all other disciplines makes me uncomfortable and a little sad to be honest. 

I'm 99% sure I've struck out this year. When I talked to my adviser he gave me the same advice he gives when people ask about publishing, that if I wasn't getting rejected I wasn't aiming high enough. Next year I plan to cast a wider net. As I explained to him, I only applied to my top choices this time around for a handful of reasons. Number one is that I wanted to go through the process and learn from it, if I was accepted it would be great but I didn't want to apply to programs that I knew I could get in to without testing the waters. Next year I'll likely switch up a few of the schools but apply to at least 8. I also utilized the CIC app fee waiver so it wasn't like I was dropping $300 just to apply.

I have to agree with Telkanuru, a recent report (like last week I think) showed that the number of TT jobs in history tend to go to graduates from just a handful of schools. As much as we don't want to admit it, where you go matters. Where this gets tricky is when it comes down to specialty. I'm going to use my specialty as an example since I know a little more about it. Unless you're joining a school that already has several Africanists, chances are most people are not going to know MSU is in the top 5 of African programs. They're just going to know you went to MSU, where you've published, what awards/grants you've gotten, and what your research is. (Obviously this is the case for most small-mid size state schools, where I assume most of us will probably get jobs. At least in the beginning.) Something my professor suggested to me is to apply to well known schools with lesser known African programs, Johns Hopkins is an example. They are probably not getting as many applicants for your specialty so they're willing to take a chance (maybe not in the case of JH but other schools.) Now, if you go to a top program in your specialty you will have a built in network and more funding. However, the downside is that you have a lot of competition for money and that your professors may not have as much time to devote to you as a student. Typically they are very high performing and might be overseeing multiple dissertations, one of the people I wanted to work with had 7 they were advising. That's not including just being on the committee.
There are pros and cons to both situations, just make sure to look at both sides and weigh them accordingly. At the end of the day it's what you think is best for you.

On the otherhand, I had another professor suggest I look into what programs are just now trying to sink money into an African specialty. They'll be more forgiving with languages, more willing to throw money at you, and less competition. He did exactly that and it's worked great for him. He recieved his PhD just a few years ago, has a TT position, published several articles, has one book coming out next year and another in the works. Part of this is that he's brilliant but also that he was in a position where the school wanted to cultivate leaders in his specialty so they put a lot of time and effort into those students. He and almost every one of his cohorts have actually surpassed many of those who went to more prestigious universities in his field.

As for my plans, I've applied for a Middle Eastern studies grant to spend six weeks conducting research in North Africa this summer. If I get it, I'll try to get in contact with an NGO or at least an English language school (ideally in Tangier). I plan to stay stateside until next December to get my ducks in a row (but also sinking more time into my thesis and defending) and then will hopefully live in Morocco for 6 months teaching English or working at an NGO. I'm not going to pretend that my application was perfect but not having lived in the country I want to study was a glaring flaw. As my professor put it, schools don't want to put 2-4 years into a student only to have them visit the country for the first time and leave the program because they can't handle living there. Anyway, I spent about one day being sad and then immediately started asking how can I better myself, how can I become a better applicant. I think this is key, don't give up, don't wallow in self-pity, and don't question your abilities. There are so many reasons you didn't get in this year and most of them have nothing to do with your intellectual abilities or quality as a student.

My first cycle as a PhD applicant hasn't gone well (rejected from 2/3 places I applied to and am awaiting the 3rd), but I've certainly learned some lessons so I thought I would share. 
 
I'm going to echo mvlchicago and say that if you're applying to a Latin American/Asian/Atlantic World/etc. program but have yet to step foot in your proposed country of interest you're going to have to be spectacular in all other aspects of your application. I was forewarned by my adviser and one of my POIs that it would be difficult to be accepted without this experience. Aside from not having done archival research in these countries, there is also a fear that students have a romantic or idealized view of what these areas will be like and when it doesn't live up to that expectation they will drop out of the program. (I'm speaking in terms of Africa here but I'm sure it applies most everywhere.)
 
Archival research. One of my LOR writers told me that I would struggle because I did not have archival research experience. Although others told me that it shouldn't be that big of a deal, I'm realizing now that it actually is. If your university is like mine and doesn't really have archives you will need to find a way to get to the archives that are relevant for your topic. Apply for funding, couch surf, whatever it takes.
 
Making your SOP too personal. I talked with one of my LOR about my personal reasons for pursuing history and my path to getting where I am today. He suggested I include it in my SOP and I'm no regretting my decision. I should have focused more on academics and only talked about my personal life when it came time to explain a two year gap between undergrad and my graduate program. 
 
Choosing a sample that showcases your foreign language ability. My paper used primary sources but they were all in English, (which was relevant to the topic) I should have chosen one that showed I could read another language. Also, submitting a sample unrelated to your field or area of interest. I should have submitted my prospectus or a chapter from my unfinished thesis. No, I haven't passed my defense but if I want to study something on the Atlantic world, I should probably not submit something on the Japanese empire. I didn't follow this advice because I didn't want to I didn't want to submit something I felt was "incomplete."
 
If you cannot avoid this, say you are switching topics, make sure your sample shows your strengths as a researcher. (Neither of the above are my topics but just examples.) One of my LOR did this, he switched from studying something like Ozark folk music to the emergence of radio in the Mexican revolution. He was able to do this because he had a strong writing sample that showed his skills in archival research, but also because he built a relationship with his potential department. Additionally, he took a chance on an up and coming Latin American department and it worked out extremely well for him. (He has 2 articles just published, a book coming out next year and another in the works. Additionally he procured a TT position right out of his program.) 
 
Lastly, don't be discouraged by a bad cycle. There are always things you can do to better yourself. Apply for funding so you can complete research in your field. If your university doesn't offer these or you find out too late, apply for Fulbright's program to teach English. I didn't find out about a middle eastern studies grant offered by my university until last semester. Instead of defending over the summer I've decided to defend in the fall so that I can be eligible for the grant. If this doesn't happen I'm considering applying for a Fulbright (it will be the first year we have one up and running at my current school). The point is that if you really want this, you should constantly be working towards it. Don't take the year off as a vacation, take the year off as an opportunity to put all available effort into bettering your application, and building a relationship with your prospective departments by going to conferences and reaching out. As I said, I haven't had a good cycle but I've learned a lot. Academia is tough and rejection is a natural part of it, you just have to grow thick skin and keep on going. 

My first cycle as a PhD applicant hasn't gone well (rejected from 2/3 places I applied to and am awaiting the 3rd), but I've certainly learned some lessons so I thought I would share. 
 
I'm going to echo mvlchicago and say that if you're applying to a Latin American/Asian/Atlantic World/etc. program but have yet to step foot in your proposed country of interest you're going to have to be spectacular in all other aspects of your application. I was forewarned by my adviser and one of my POIs that it would be difficult to be accepted without this experience. Aside from not having done archival research in these countries, there is also a fear that students have a romantic or idealized view of what these areas will be like and when it doesn't live up to that expectation they will drop out of the program. (I'm speaking in terms of Africa here but I'm sure it applies most everywhere.)
 
Archival research. One of my LOR writers told me that I would struggle because I did not have archival research experience. Although others told me that it shouldn't be that big of a deal, I'm realizing now that it actually is. If your university is like mine and doesn't really have archives you will need to find a way to get to the archives that are relevant for your topic. Apply for funding, couch surf, whatever it takes.
 
Making your SOP too personal. I talked with one of my LOR about my personal reasons for pursuing history and my path to getting where I am today. He suggested I include it in my SOP and I'm no regretting my decision. I should have focused more on academics and only talked about my personal life when it came time to explain a two year gap between undergrad and my graduate program. 
 
Choosing a sample that showcases your foreign language ability. My paper used primary sources but they were all in English, (which was relevant to the topic) I should have chosen one that showed I could read another language. Also, submitting a sample unrelated to your field or area of interest. I should have submitted my prospectus or a chapter from my unfinished thesis. No, I haven't passed my defense but if I want to study something on the Atlantic world, I should probably not submit something on the Japanese empire. I didn't follow this advice because I didn't want to I didn't want to submit something I felt was "incomplete."
 
If you cannot avoid this, say you are switching topics, make sure your sample shows your strengths as a researcher. (Neither of the above are my topics but just examples.) One of my LOR did this, he switched from studying something like Ozark folk music to the emergence of radio in the Mexican revolution. He was able to do this because he had a strong writing sample that showed his skills in archival research, but also because he built a relationship with his potential department. Additionally, he took a chance on an up and coming Latin American department and it worked out extremely well for him. (He has 2 articles just published, a book coming out next year and another in the works. Additionally he procured a TT position right out of his program.) 
 
Lastly, don't be discouraged by a bad cycle. There are always things you can do to better yourself. Apply for funding so you can complete research in your field. If your university doesn't offer these or you find out too late, apply for Fulbright's program to teach English. I didn't find out about a middle eastern studies grant offered by my university until last semester. Instead of defending over the summer I've decided to defend in the fall so that I can be eligible for the grant. If this doesn't happen I'm considering applying for a Fulbright (it will be the first year we have one up and running at my current school). The point is that if you really want this, you should constantly be working towards it. Don't take the year off as a vacation, take the year off as an opportunity to put all available effort into bettering your application, and building a relationship with your prospective departments by going to conferences and reaching out. As I said, I haven't had a good cycle but I've learned a lot. Academia is tough and rejection is a natural part of it, you just have to grow thick skin and keep on going. 

I think history is all encompassing and where you find yourself really depends on how you approach the topic. I'm interested in cultural history and material heritage but not exactly art history, anthropology, or heritage studies. Although I focus on traditional arts, I'm more interested in discussing the politics than the aesthetics. I'm familiar with both approaches (my undergrad is in art history and anthropology) but feel what I want to do is more akin to history than the others. I'm also a fan of big history, something many might just think is physics or, after a certain point, biology. Charles C. Mann discusses how the Columbian Exchange forever altered the global landscape and Alfred Crosby's Ecological Imperialism blends biology and history to show how environment/biology lended itself to European expansion, but that doesn't mean they're not history. I don't think that people should be discredited or discouraged becoming more interdisciplanry in their research. I'm in the camp that believes casting a wider net leads better perspectives. There are still plenty of departments that seek out "traditional" historians, but these departments are also admitting those interested in gender, technology, and environment. More competition isn't always a bad thing and I think these new approaches make history more relatable to the general public.

I have one school left and when I told my professor he said "Well, you only need to get into one." I think a lot of us are on the same page, we tend to be the best and the brightest in our departments but when every applicant is the best and the brightest things become complicated and admission committees have to make tough choices. They could range from not a great "fit" to the professor you want to work with just took a job at a different university (I had this happen to me and it's happened at my school mid semester, the professor finished out the year but still), another option is that your POI has so many students that they can't really take on another.
 
One of the schools I struck out of told me I didn't have enough "experience," I've never set foot in the country I want to study and have yet to begun studying one of their languages. (I've got French but my school doesn't have an Arabic program.) You know what, they're right. As sad and upset as it makes me, I would rather a school tell me I'm not ready and allow me time to work on myself than to admit me only to fail. Rejection hurts, no doubt about it, but it's also an opportunity to grow. If I don't get admitted this cycle I plan to take full advantage of it. These words probably don't make you feel better but just know that you're not the only person out there facing an unplanned year off.

You applied to 10 schools, just remember you only need to get in to 1! Looking for jobs is always good but skip food service and apply to office jobs. You might work 40 hrs a week but they're regular hours, more responsibility, and you'll be able to focus on boosting your application for the next cycle. (Because you're not having to close at 11 and be back at 7am.) If I don't get in I'm looking for a job in an office or working front desk at a hotel (did this full time throughout undergrad, I could study in my downtime and didn't have to waste gas going to work for a 4 hour shift like I do now.) It's good to be realistic but when you've still got 8 schools to hear from you shouldn't already be counting yourself out.

I just...do? I'm with Ashiepoo in that "I like dead people more than living people" but in all seriousness learning about the past gives weight and importance to today. I've always been someone focused on the past, in elementary school I read books about time travel (does anyone else remember Time Warp Trio?), Helen of Troy, and colonial America. At 10 I was the nerd who came to history class dressed as Eva Peron to give a biographical presentation, how does a 10 year old even know Eva Peron? I checked out a book from the city library on "great" women and she was one of them. (The year before I dressed as Hernando De Soto.) 
 
I'm just infinitely curious about the lives of those before. When I see the worn down steps in older buildings I immediately think, what where their lives like? What inspired them? What were their worries, triumphs, and tragedies? I wish I had a more scholarly reason for studying history but I don't, I just couldn't imagine myself anywhere else. (The added benefit is that my peers get my bad jokes instead of just staring at me blankly.)

What I think this conversation boils down to, is what is considered a legitimate form of historical inquiry? The word diluted insinuates that there is a pure form of history (traditional history) and a foreign form of history (non-traditional) that is making history lose its flavor. From what I can tell, Vr4Douche's argument rests upon this idea that projects that incorporate interdisciplinary methodologies or theories could find a home in other departments. If they want to be in history departments that is okay, but further funding needs to come in order to accommodate them. This argument is wrong on many levels. First, as has been said before several times, these projects are not good fits for other departments. The rest of the social sciences primarily have a presentist focus, which goes against the very foundation of the historical discipline. Just because someone uses political theories in their work, does not make them a political scientist. Nor does using sociological theories make them a sociologist. This argument is not grounded in any reality.
 
Furthermore, you made the argument that graduate students using non-traditional approaches are coming into history graduate programs but history departments are not getting extra funding to accommodate these students. This argument implies that space in graduate school programs should first be given to traditional historians and space given to non-traditional historians only if there are the proper resources. that there is this hierarchy of historical approaches. You have frequently said that people who study non-traditional topics could find themselves in other departments. That is the same as saying that the non-traditional form of history is not a legitimate form of historical inquiry. Or at least not legitimate enough for spaces in history graduate programs. Lastly, I think you are confusing unusable and unfashionable. Social and cultural historians in history departments are not on a witch hunt against traditional history. You'll find that they use them in their own work. I think people still believe that traditional histories have their use. Traditional history is just becoming unfashionable in the academy. This is how historiography works. There are trends that come and go. If you want to show that your traditional history is relevant, challenges paradigms, and adds immensely to historical knowledge, then make that case in your Personal Statement. It is not the case that the historical academy is this rigid system that will not accept traditional historians but rather traditional histories, for decades, only told the stories of elites, whites, and men. The social and cultural turns rather attempt to show that other people matter too. 
 
Also, what do you mean by "I am concerned that white, straight, middle-class men have lost opportunity?" Have history departments declared war against white, middle class men and I just didn't know it?

I like dead people more than living people

In all seriousness, I have this weird connection to history that just draws me in. I don't think I could do anything else or at least not be fulfilled by anything else. I find history vital, dynamic and obviously important, something that needs to be studied and made valuable in the present and the future. But mostly, history gives me the feels

To me, it really seems like you were interested in programs that maybe weren't a good fit for you to begin with.  I think part of your problem may have been a small sample size, because the US is full of people who do military history or who work on late antiquity (i can think of several universities off the top of my head that might have been a good fit for you -- they don't seem to have been on your list).
 
I am a legal/church (medieval England) historian -- which to my mind, is about as "traditional" (as you seem to define it) as it gets.  I cannot incorporate race/ethnicity/gender or even class into my work.  Yet the responses I received from the professors I have contacted has been overwhelmingly positive.  I have written a MA thesis, and published an article on that topic (it has to do with Advowson and writs of quare impedit/quare non admisit).  So I knew exactly what I wanted my project to be, I knew the documents and archives I need to use, and I can read them easily.
 
When I started the cycle, I surveyed pretty much every major history program in the US (and some in England) (about 100 programs). I immediately threw out about 60% because they didn't have a medievalist of my era on staff.  I pretty much completely avoided the traditional "medieval" schools, because their version of Church history (they overwhelmingly focus on monastic life, or medieval women, or canon law) just didn't jive with what I was interested in.  By the time i had the list down to twenty, I started REALLY looking at the work that each professor was doing -- were they working in the 14th century? were they working on legal history? did they have a background in church history as well? I contacted them all, and the professors at about 10 universities responded really positively. I ended up scratching some of those of the list because there were still fit issues that I think would have kept me out, and I wasn't interested in wasting my money.  I also ultimately chose not to apply in England, because I frankly can't afford to attend without funding.  I now have an offer from a program I never would have dreamed I would get into a year ago, and I am ecstatic about the future
 
I say all this to tell you -- I didn't apply to Toronto, Notre Dame, Chicago, or Yale because the fit just wasn't there.  I don't expect to fit everywhere.  Fit is an issue that is especially problematic for medievalists, and you really aren't alone in having a hard time finding the right programs -- but that doesn't mean that someone like Caroline Bynum belongs exclusively in a gender studies department.  It just means that you need to find departments that fit your needs, and may need to broaden your horizons beyond traditional "medieval" schools, and the tippy top tiers of graduate programs. 
 
For you specifically -- if you would accept that, while ridiculous, the GRE is necessary to work in America -- I would have suggested that you look at Princeton, Boston College, and the University of Florida -- all of which have history programs that are exceptionally strong in late antiquity.  Keep in mind also that while you study military history, late antiquity -- Peter Brown notwithstanding -- is a relatively new field of study, and many people interested in late antiquity tend to incorporate archaeology and other disciplines because it doesn't really work otherwise.  You might do well to be looking into archaeology programs as well -- historical archaeology seems to be something up and coming that could be relevant to you.
 
History is wonderful specifically because it is a constantly ongoing, and subsequently ever-changing thing.  The study of history, likewise, changes along with global politics, and the advent of concepts like equality (gender, racial, etc) has colored the way that history is interpreted and changed the emphasis that we place on certain aspects of our studies.  This is not a bad thing, and is, I think, necessary. Do you have to hustle a little harder? Maybe.  As I said above, in some ways medievalists have a much harder time with fit than other fields. But its also no longer 1960, and England really isn't trying to find the roots of its empire in the same way it was post-WWII. 
 
To my mind, the field of history has not been diluted, but rather made richer by the inclusion of these disciplines.  Its unfair, both to you and to everyone else, to argue that because your particular discipline is no longer the most commonly studied, history has become less than it once was.  
 
Edited to add:  I wrote all of this with a strong England/Western bias -- I still have no idea what you want your topic to be, because the proposed topics you have discussed have been so disparate.

I have one school left and when I told my professor he said "Well, you only need to get into one." I think a lot of us are on the same page, we tend to be the best and the brightest in our departments but when every applicant is the best and the brightest things become complicated and admission committees have to make tough choices. They could range from not a great "fit" to the professor you want to work with just took a job at a different university (I had this happen to me and it's happened at my school mid semester, the professor finished out the year but still), another option is that your POI has so many students that they can't really take on another.
 
One of the schools I struck out of told me I didn't have enough "experience," I've never set foot in the country I want to study and have yet to begun studying one of their languages. (I've got French but my school doesn't have an Arabic program.) You know what, they're right. As sad and upset as it makes me, I would rather a school tell me I'm not ready and allow me time to work on myself than to admit me only to fail. Rejection hurts, no doubt about it, but it's also an opportunity to grow. If I don't get admitted this cycle I plan to take full advantage of it. These words probably don't make you feel better but just know that you're not the only person out there facing an unplanned year off.

The world does not exist in a vacuum nor is it relegated to "the march of time." I think there is plenty of room in departments for "traditional" historians but the prevalence of us who focus on history interwined with other disciplines is also on the rise. I think you're assuming that because more departments are admitting these types of students they are not admitting tradition historians, instead of considering that perhaps the admission rates reflect ratio of "traditional" historians to environmental/gender/etc. If only 10% of the applicants study what you have defined as traditional does that mean they should constitute 100% of the department? I don't think so. The idea that we need remain in the archives and write histories that exclude all other disciplines makes me uncomfortable and a little sad to be honest. 

Looks like I'll be in limbo until March, BU just informed me the committee will be meeting until the end of the month. Let's hope Ohio rolls out the second wave soon!

Don't feel bad rmw, I've only heard back from one school and it was a rejection. To add insult to injury, a week later they sent me a letter. I ripped it up, threw it in the trash, bought cupcakes, and binge watched Netflix for a day. While I highly recommend cupcakes and Netflix, a bonfire also sounds nice. I'm sending positive vibes your way!

I've had several professors who pursued PhDs with children. One took a three week old to Africa during Fulbright research and another took a 2 year old to Mexico for a year. Both were men but I'm willing to bet the biggest difference for women would be pregnancy and the first few months after. My husband and I have decided to try to have our first after my first year or so in a program, if I don't get in this year we'll try to have one during the one year break. (A win-win for us!) I would imagine mentioning a child in a SoP would only be expected if relevant (you took a break but didn't work during that break.) Edit: I'll add I'm 27, I'll be 28 in June. I don't think I'm old, but most of the people in my MA program are fresh from getting their bachelor's. Their average age is 21-24, so there are definitely times I feel old.

I wouldn't apply to BU on the hopes of working with Thornton alone. He's a very big name (pretty much a rock-star in Atlantic world history) and, from what I understand, does not take on many students. I plan to put an application into BU so I wish you all the luck but it's better to be realistic, although BU has a phenomenal African Studies department so if that's your thing then go for it! I thoroughly enjoyed reading Thornton and highly recommend Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World. It's an older book (20+ years I think?) but he talks about how Africans came from a place of power within the Atlantic world, instead of being taken advantage of, which is the standard for discussing Africa post-1400.