Taking the nation-state as our point of spatial reference, we can differentiatenot only between historiographies on a sub-national level likevillages and cities, but units on a supra-national level. Applied to concrete formsLine 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 spatialconcepts, 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 quiteneutral and innocent, they often carry important ideological and politicalimplications. Like "the Orient", the notion of "the primitive", "the savage"(10) and the "barbarian" have fulfilled similar ideological functions in the colonialencounter, because—like "the Orient"—they were used as the justification ofthe domination of "the primitive" by its supposed opposite: the "civilized" partof 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 therelationship between regional and national historiographies. The microcosm ofthe region functions may sometimes be substituted illegitimately for themacrocosm of the nation—take for instance, the confusion of Holland for thewhole of the Netherlands, a problem that has complicated the classification of(20) historiographies on basis of spatial markers. The third and perhaps mosttroubling problem in our spatial scheme is the essentially contested character ofits central concept: the nation. The nation belongs to the same category asnotions like "freedom" and "democracy" that also refuse unambiguous definitionand 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 arerepresented as nations, and sometimes nations are represented as supra-nationalunits, 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 representationsin 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 thehistorical roots of political problems, a practice that amounts to theidentification and the integration of the different and often conflicting(35) perspectives pertaining to present day issues. It is neither realistic norreasonable to expect consensus in historiography; as in politics, the most wecan strive for is a sound knowledge of the different points of view, leading to amaximum of empathy and to mutual understanding of past and present positions. The author of the passage puts the word "savage" and "barbarian" (lines 9-10) in quotation marks most probably in order to（）

A. signal his reservations about the way these terms have been used to define geography through human categories
B. draw attention to the discrepancies between the way historiographers treat the supra-national and sub-national levels
C. emphasize historiography's unique tendency to rely upon social categories to draw geographic distinctions
D. question the notion of the spatial marker itself by asserting the general ambiguity of these terms
E. argue for the replacement of these terms by historiographers with more politically correct substitutes