Taking the nation-state as our point of spatial reference, we can differentiate
not only between historiographies on a sub-national level like
villages and cities, but units on a supra-national level. Applied to concrete forms
Line of historiography, however, we confront at least three kinds of problems that
(5) complicate this scheme, the first of which, the ideological load of some spatial
concepts, was put on the agenda by Edward Said’s analysis of the notion of the
"Orient". Said has shown that though most spatial concepts initially appear quite
neutral and innocent, they often carry important ideological and political
implications. Like "the Orient", the notion of "the primitive", "the savage"
(10) and the "barbarian" have fulfilled similar ideological functions in the colonial
encounter, because—like "the Orient"—they were used as the justification of
the domination of "the primitive" by its supposed opposite: the "civilized" part
of the world.
The second problem is that the spatial scope of a historical work is not
(15) always what it seems, especially instances when we would like to assess the
relationship between regional and national historiographies. The microcosm of
the region functions may sometimes be substituted illegitimately for the
macrocosm of the nation—take for instance, the confusion of Holland for the
whole of the Netherlands, a problem that has complicated the classification of
(20) historiographies on basis of spatial markers. The third and perhaps most
troubling problem in our spatial scheme is the essentially contested character of
its central concept: the nation. The nation belongs to the same category as
notions like "freedom" and "democracy" that also refuse unambiguous definition
and the fundamental problem in the discourse on the nation is that the nation
(25) does not necessarily coincide with the state or even with the nation-state.
Sometimes spatial units at a sub-state level, like provinces or tribal areas are
represented as nations, and sometimes nations are represented as supra-national
units, units exceeding the borders of a nation-state.
It is not the task of professional historians to solve these practical issues—
(30) this is a matter of politics—but to clarify the different historical representations
in each case. Historians do not have a special task in solving political problems,
but as professional specialists of the past they have the task of clarifying the
historical roots of political problems, a practice that amounts to the
identification and the integration of the different and often conflicting
(35) perspectives pertaining to present day issues. It is neither realistic nor
reasonable to expect consensus in historiography; as in politics, the most we
can strive for is a sound knowledge of the different points of view, leading to a
maximum of empathy and to mutual understanding of past and present positions.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author mentions the case of Holland and the Netherlands in order to（）