|
|
Post by hausmann on May 8, 2016 13:50:40 GMT
Welcome to first discussion thread of the semester. As it says on the syllabus, you are required to address ONE of these questions by Thursday at 4pm. Your answers should be thoughtful and thorough. I'll answer one myself to show you what I mean and I'll be lenient the first week since we're all just getting our feet wet, but expect to write at least two paragraphs worth of response. You should directly address at least two of the assignments in your answer. Also, by Saturday at 4pm you should address one of your classmates comments. This can be somewhat shorter (no more than two paragraphs) but no less thoughtful. And remember, this is a history class and history isn't dead but is very much alive. This means we'll be dealing with difficult matters sometimes. Please be mature and respectful of your classmates - anything less will not be tolerated.
This week's discussion questions are as follows:
1. What is your experience with history? For many of you, this might be the first college-level history class you take (though hopefully not the last). After listening to Ulrich, reading Andrews/Burke and watching Grossman, is there anything you find surprising about what historians do, compared to how you thought about history prior to this week? Part of my purpose in this class is to give you a taste of what professional historians do for a living and show you why our work matters. After this week's assignments, do you have a sense of the how and why of history work? What are they?
2. In her Huntington lecture, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich talks about how things get remembered. Think of the example of Antiques Roadshow compared to the crocheted piece by one of the women held by bondage by Thomas Jefferson, or the story of Betsy Ross. Why does it matter what gets remembered, saved and documented? Can you think of an example of mis-remembered or un-remembered history, maybe from your family's history or from recent (or semi-recent) current events? What can you tell about a society from their remembered and forgotten past?
3. James Grossman, executive director of the American Historical Association, said in the video that the number of people who learn history by visiting national parks "far eclipses" the number who read books by professional historians. Where are some surprising, interesting or unexpected places where you have learned history. How was the history presented? Whose points of view were put forward as the narrative of the place or event? Why do you think history was told there, what purpose did it serve? Finally, why do you think history is so much more accessible at places like parks and museums than it is in books? What I mean is, why don't very many people read books by professional historians? Are they boring? Not well advertised?
Depending on how focused I want the discussion to be there will be between 3 and 5 discussion questions in any given week. Let's go with these three for now. I'm excited to read your responses! I'll try and get mine up sometime this afternoon or tomorrow morning, but if you want to take a hack at answering one before you see my model, you can feel free as, like I said, I'm giving you all a free pass this week to learn what I'm looking for in question responses.
|
|
|
|
Post by danielkogan on May 9, 2016 2:05:24 GMT
Response to Discussion Question 1:
To be quite honest, in terms of formal education, my experience with history is minimal. I mean, of course I know major events that have occurred; however, probably do not know specific details about them. More so, I am not so educated on anything other than the so-called “main stream” historic events—the common knowledge ones, such as JFK’s assassination or WWII. Despite that all, I am certainly open to widening my horizon in the study of history.
That said, after reviewing this week's material, the one key piece of information that immediately stuck out to me was in Jim Grossman’s video where he discusses historical thinking. In his opening remarks, he essentially mentions that what is unique to historians is not what they may know, but specifically how they think. The reason this was so interesting to me was because in a way, I always thought that education in history was essentially a reiteration of what the American people know about a particular historical occurrence, but in a formal educational setting. However, Grossman explains that historians practice historical thinking, and that education in history surrounds this practice. Grossman goes on to explain that historical thinking is essentially very discussion-based. In particular, this style of thinking places a large emphasis on developing relevant and constructive questions based on context. In a similar fashion, the article by Thomas Andrews and Flannery Burke discusses this idea as well. Initially, Andrews and Burke discuss the five Cs (change over time, context, causality, contingency, and complexity) that they believe define the groundwork of historical thinking. More so, they specifically mention that arriving at an adequate understanding of context is pivotal ability for professional historians, specifically with storytelling. With a proficiency of that sort, historians are able to exercise effective story telling—form arguments, refute opinions, describe change, and explain past events. With all that said, from this week’s course material, I was really able to gain insight on the discipline and notions surrounding professional historical thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by hausmann on May 9, 2016 13:21:02 GMT
Thanks Daniel for getting us started off. I'll tackle the second discussion question. One of the reasons I went into the field of history was because it became apparent to me that what we remember as a society determines how we perceive the present. A good example is the controversy over the construction of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washinton, DC.  The U.S. government funded construction, and artist Maya Lin designed, this memorial during the late 1970s and early 1980s. This coincided with a wider political debate in the United States about the role of government, American identity, and the memory of the Vietnam War, which had ended just under a decade earlier in an American defeat. Or had it? Many, in particular many on the American right, argued either that America never really lost the war or that America had only lost because of Vietnam protesters and a lack of patriotic spirit on the home front. Getting involved in Vietnam was a noble cause, they argued, and fighting to end communism was something to be lauded. To these Americans, the planned (and later, constructed) memorial did not seem triumphant enough. Take a look at the above photo - see how the Washington Monument rises above the rest of DC, seemingly aspiring to great heights and inspiring in its clean, white marble? The Vietnam Memorial, by contrast, invites reflection and stands humbly low to the ground. To some Americans, this was admitting American defeat, American shame and denigrating the memories of those lost by denying the nobility of their cause. Anyway, this is all a long way of saying that whether someone remembered the Vietnam War as a moment of American shame and crisis and supported the construction of the monument or whether they viewed the war as a just cause that was not followed through upon and hated the monument said a lot about their politics and how they thought of American identity. This is why history matters to me and why historical memory and public history (history done outside the walls of colleges and universities) is of critical importance. The way people think about the past has a direct impact on how people think about the present. In this way, the past is still very much alive! |
|
|
|
Post by hausmann on May 9, 2016 13:22:54 GMT
That's about what I'm looking for in these responses - about 300-500 words, using personal experience, historical examples or evidence from class assignments to back up your point. Pictures are optional but encouraged when you think they're helpful to your case. You can link directly from Google Image Search by pasting the image URL into the popup box when you click the image button.
|
|
|
|
Post by madison on May 10, 2016 1:27:17 GMT
Response to Question #1:
My last experience with history, in a formal setting, was in high school, which was about four to five years ago. I have always found historical events to be interesting to learn about, but history also has frustrated me as well. I have never been good at remembering dates that historical events occurred on, which was most of my high school history experience. I am interested to see the material that is covered in this class and hopefully I will find an interest in it.
While reading the Andrew/Burke article I was surprised by the realization of the use of causality, by historians. The article mentions how the use of debates and role-play are ways historians teach causality by allowing students to form logical interpretations of evidence. This is so simple, yet I have never thought of it in this capacity before. After reading the articles and watching the videos I have a better understanding of what historians do. The Andrew/Burke article highlighted the five C’s of history and the Betsy Ross article highlighted how history can change over time. It was originally believed that Betsy Ross made the first American flag, but after reading the Ulrich article, that may not be the case. As mentioned in the article the chronology of history events did not match up with the year that Betsy Ross apparently made the first American flag. This was found out many years after the first publication of Betsy Ross as the first person to make the American flag. This proves that as years go on and historians keep digging further into events, more information is brought to the surface and new rationales and conclusions can be formulated about events. These readings were able to help me get a deeper understanding of all that historians do.
|
|
|
|
Post by craigaway on May 10, 2016 2:20:07 GMT
Question #1: This is my first college-level history class and I thought there would be more memorization involved. In the Andrews and Burke article, the element of complexity has shown that history is not a series of dates and names. Nor is it a repeating of folktales that cover up the less admirable sides to history. In the article about Betsy Ross, Lauren Ulrich uncovers the layers of complexity that eventually led to Betsy being an icon of patriotism. The story is essentially a folktale, but the making of that tale is explained in all of its detail by Thatchers historical analysis. I guess the question I would ask is: does the final story about the making of the first flag, through ancestor testimony and all of the political baggage attached to it, qualify as history?
The Laurel Ulrich podcast has strong elements of storytelling and her ability to put historical objects and events into context is helpful for me to understand and put together all of the disparate pieces into a coherent whole. The Poplar Forest House during its restoration and after the removal of stairs, showed more than just the living conditions of a rats nest. It was necessary to include the type of rat (Black), which prefers houses and has a range (100-150'), and some of the habits of the rats like the need for bedding, food, and to gnaw on objects, which incorporates parts of rat biology in the historical explanation. In the part about General Ward, she speaks about a smoking cap that men would wear to keep their heads covered without a wig. The leather cap came from a Ukrainian boot from central Europe and this also showed the range of the family. Tying these two different stories together helped me attach my own meaning to our need to gather objects. Although rats may not have a need to attach meaning to objects, people do need to create meaning out of objects that they collect.
In the major that I am in, we deal with a lot of dry topics like population projections, land-use and zoning, and community analysis. Recently we were required to do an ethnography, and I was required to go out and interview residents and come up with reasons for what makes a community unique and worth preserving. Without this type of digging into the background and living arrangements of residents, we community planners would be blinded by theory and top-heavy planning that is without context. In a similar vein, historical analysis would be limited without the inclusion of complexity and context in explaining the past and making that past relevant to the present.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpetonak2 on May 10, 2016 2:35:42 GMT
Response to discussion question 3 –
Since a young age I have always been interested in history. I remember just wanting to know what happened in certain time periods and to not only know what happened, but why it happened. I have always been interested in history that concerns wars such as WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and the Korean Conflict. My Grandfather has always told me about his times in the Navy during the Korean Conflict. He never saw any firefight action but has millions of stories as to what was going on in the world and what he did during that time. This past Saturday night I stayed up with him until two in the morning, listening to his stories of his time in the Navy. I learned a lot about the world and what happened from him.
Saturday night he was telling me about all the major freedom ports he visited and how the ports in Cuba were his favorite. He told me how the citizens of Cuba would come right up to the ships with money and buy cigarettes at outrageous prices from him and his fellow soldiers. He said “you can buy a carton of cigarettes of the ship store for about a buck and then walk off the ship and sell that same carton to some local in Cuba for five bucks.” That and along with many other stories is the type of history that is not always written in books that you can read. Museums and parks are more interesting to people that visit them instead of reading it from a book. You can feel the importance and take it in easier when physically being there instead of reading from a book. Even listening to family members and other people that experienced that event give a different take on the main stream history that many people read. I believe that many people do not read books by professional historians because most people already know the basics of what happened and want to know something that is more interesting and not something they have already heard before.
|
|
|
|
Post by craigaway on May 10, 2016 14:33:09 GMT
Response to Question #1: My last experience with history, in a formal setting, was in high school, which was about four to five years ago. I have always found historical events to be interesting to learn about, but history also has frustrated me as well. I have never been good at remembering dates that historical events occurred on, which was most of my high school history experience. I am interested to see the material that is covered in this class and hopefully I will find an interest in it. While reading the Andrew/Burke article I was surprised by the realization of the use of causality, by historians. The article mentions how the use of debates and role-play are ways historians teach causality by allowing students to form logical interpretations of evidence. This is so simple, yet I have never thought of it in this capacity before. After reading the articles and watching the videos I have a better understanding of what historians do. The Andrew/Burke article highlighted the five C’s of history and the Betsy Ross article highlighted how history can change over time. It was originally believed that Betsy Ross made the first American flag, but after reading the Ulrich article, that may not be the case. As mentioned in the article the chronology of history events did not match up with the year that Betsy Ross apparently made the first American flag. This was found out many years after the first publication of Betsy Ross as the first person to make the American flag. This proves that as years go on and historians keep digging further into events, more information is brought to the surface and new rationales and conclusions can be formulated about events. These readings were able to help me get a deeper understanding of all that historians do. It is interesting to me that the Betsy Ross story has evolved over time. History is not only about the explanation of past events. As historians dig deeper into an evolving story like the Betsy Ross/First Flag tale, it shows that history is living and ever in need of new viewpoints. By seeing how the folktale changed over time, the historical perspective forces us to understand the underlying issues behind the headlines. The Betsy Ross tale includes cultural elements that make the story more relevant even today. The five C's have helped me to see that there is more to history than memorization and just accepting the "official" explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by tylerg033 on May 11, 2016 12:37:24 GMT
Response to Question 1:
My experience with history is like that of many other people in the world. It has been a bit limited but I have always tried to learn more about history and how it has brought us to where we are because I find history to be very intriguing.
I do not know if any of what I read or saw surprised me too much about what historians do but I did find the Andrews/Burke way of looking at history was a good idea. They came up with the 5 C’s that and these seem to really help kids have a better idea of the history they are learning and why they are learning it. I think the first two they talked about were by far the most important and easiest to realize for all of us. It is very key to remember that the world and everything changes over time and we must also remember to look at history in the right context. I had never really thought about history this way and I thought this was a great way for students to be able to learn more about history.
I believe I do have a good sense of how and why history work, it comes from the effort put in by historians to learn and understand everything that has gone on with that historical event. Once this is done by the historian they then began using critical thinking, problem solving, data analysis and anything else that can allow them to completely understand this historical context of something and then use that to pass it along to the next generation.
|
|
|
|
Post by chelseaw on May 11, 2016 14:42:30 GMT
It doesn’t surprise me that more people learn history by going to national parks, museums, and reading about it online. We live in the age of technology where everything is within our fingertips, if we want to learn history we can simply google our question and have millions of answers at our disposal. In today’s age, even museums have websites so now you do not even have to be in person to see it. Personally I believe it makes more sense to experience history then read about it in a book that could be too long, and be a dry read. History is all around us, everywhere we go there is something to be learned about it, so learning can be done anywhere. There have been times where I have been the in the car with my family going on a road trip and we drove past a town with a funny name, or a building, and I’ve been curious about it so I’ve looked it up on google. That’s whats so great about having history online because I could be anywhere in the world, and still learn something that I thought about in a passing thought.
I love reading, unlike some people I still by hardcopy books. There is just something special about holding a book in my hands, feeling the pages turn, and seeing how much I have left to experience that makes me enjoy reading that much more. However, although I love reading, I wouldn’t read a history book even if somebody made me. In my experience, and I think the experience of most people, history books can be too long, too tedious to read, and too boring. The authors do their best, but they are scholars so things can become dragged on, making their works very long and unenjoyable to read. Why would anybody read a book if they can just watch a tv show about the subject, listen to a podcast, or google the answer? Personally I would rather go to a park, or watch a show and experience history then read about it. We live in a faced paced world, everything has to be instantaneous, so reading a book takes more effort than some people are willing to partake in.
|
|
|
|
Post by blweaver215 on May 11, 2016 19:51:18 GMT
Question #3:
When I was younger my family used to travel into Philadelphia and take several tours of historical places. I remember learning a lot about the history of Philadelphia through these tours. Several of the tour guides would often introduce actors who were portraying historical figures. These actors would then tell stories about Philadelphia’s history through their historical persons’ point of view. These historical people included Benjamin Franklin, Harriet Tubman, Edgar Allen Poe, and several others. It was always interesting to watch the actors portray themselves as these figures. The feeling that a historical figure was actually talking to you only heightened my interest in what they were saying. Almost every actor was placed in an exact location. This way what they were saying made sense in the context of the tour. I remember on one occasion the tour guide was talking about the Revolutionary War and how Benjamin Franklin persuaded the French to help us. But instead of her rambling on about a story, the actor portraying Benjamin Franklin got up from a bench near by to tell the story. The story had more authenticity and felt more engaging when the actor told the story.
Another interesting way that I have learned history is through several stories from my grandfather about his time in World War II and growing up in the 20th century. He would often tell stories about how the Americans won World War II and crucial battles that were fought over in Europe. However, he also would tell me about the great depression, the industrial revolution, what people did for fun before technology, and an overall rundown of each decade throughout the 20th century. I think that it was his way of sharing his knowledge with me. It was far more engaging than any tour that I took because the stories were coming from a family member. Instead of an actor telling me about the Liberty Bell I was hearing about intense battles in World War II and massive development in industry and technology from someone who was really there to explore in it.
The historical tours in Philadelphia and stories told by my grandfather are prominent examples why history might be more accessible in parks, museums, and tours rather than books. These tours and were always engaging, and the stories even more so. They brought a sense of interaction and authenticity to history, more than books may be able to. In my own opinion, history books have always come with a “textbook” feel to them. They are usually a bit denser than other books and harder to begin reading. Although I find history books interesting, I can see how history books can become stale for others rather quickly. Also, through a history book it is easy to feel “far away” from the historical events. However, when talking about history with someone or hearing historical events retold from someone, it feels as if history is right in front of you.
|
|
|
|
Post by hollie on May 12, 2016 0:50:09 GMT
I have taken a number of history courses as electives, primarily during summer sessions, due to my major’s availability as the students’ progress. With every history or sociology, class I have been registered for, a new as well as sometimes different account on history becomes exposed to me. These classes have become the layers to my ever-changing perception of historical events. I have taken racism in history courses along with immigration to America classes just because I find these areas of history to be attention grabbing and still relevant today. Currently I am enrolled in this summer session, taking another course called Race, Identity, and Experience in American Art/ TYLE 0805. These diverse designed classes have allowed me the ability to understand the depths of a topic or period as well as see the complexities of how these occurrences through history have been conceived and viewed.
The five c’s that Burke and Andrews discuss are a basic outline to the study of history. The area these men believe is least focused on is complexity and that topic in my opinion holds the most answers a historian can find. Complexity asks the questions pertaining to historical happenings such as why did this incident happen at this time. Why did this proceeding materialize at this place? Will the incident or feat happen again? The how and why attracts my interest when I am learning a new topic. When inquiring about a subject or topic as a wiser student, my purpose must have a point when developing my education for my career or profession, but history is for pleasure and just because I have an interest and enjoy the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on May 12, 2016 1:48:27 GMT
Question #3
I suppose places where I have learned unexpected or surprising history is at parks and museums. The history however that I find surprising is usually not particular to the main topic of the park or museum but instead relates to the history through complex situations. Many times I have found interesting historical information just through simple searching online. There's a website called historic aerials that I go to when I'm in an area that has certain topographic changes that I've learned to look out for. In the area where I'm from along the New Jersey coast, drastic changes in topography such as large hills that wouldn't geologically form naturally near the shore, or very straight, level, and flat embankments that cut through woods and towns are good indicators of man made things. Things such as the large hill being the refuse pile from the early excavations of a nearby canal, or the long embankment being the only remnants of where a railroad used to be.
Many times I find this information from my grandparents, who can recount their experience or their parents experience with such local history. So, for the most part this history is presented to me through an inquiry. Why is that hill there? Where does that embankment go? Why is my Aunts farm flanked on either side by uniform hills? For the most part the answer can be found from old topographic maps online. (My Aunts farm used to be a gravel pit, so the extra dirt was piled on either side.) Other times the information is more involved to discover. When asking my grandfather about the photo of a man standing next to a model T converted into a bus on the wall, I found out that his father started a bus company and that was the first bus. Almost every year after a photo was taken of my great grandfather next to his new bus of that year. When I saw the gap in dates from 1916 to 1918 I found that he was away, fighting in WW1. And the complexity builds as Ulrich and Andrews discussed. This history serves the purpose for me to understand the changes that go on from my local history to world history. When it comes to museums and parks and places, I think the history is easier to consume then in books is because it can be understood and remembered through the senses of sound, smell, touch, and so on. When it comes to books, the senses that would bring one to the time period that is being studied, depends on how imaginative the author can describe such senses. For me, every time I smell charcoal burning I immediately can think back to the first times I saw blacksmithing at a museum. In my mind it comes down to the presentation.
|
|
|
|
Post by jacksharkey1234 on May 12, 2016 2:48:00 GMT
The experience that I have had with history was nothing more than a fleeting interest until my freshman year of high school. As part of our previous summer reading assignment, I read Number the Stars: a novel about a Jewish family from Copenhagen who was among the large portion of Danish Jews who escaped to Sweden in the beginning stages of the Nazi Occupation of Denmark in 1940. The actions of the Danish resistance movement strongly resonated with me, as Hitler’s ideology of “Aryan” supremacy meant that he viewed the (Christian) Danes as similar to the Germans; and they were treated far better than other occupied countries. Despite this, the resistance fighters risked the lives of themselves and their families to help the Jewish population escape to Sweden. I was also very interested in why countries such as Denmark and Norway were invaded, yet Sweden remained neutral throughout the war, this resulted in me going so far as to begin reading all sorts of Wikipedia articles and book on the subject in my own free time (voluntarily reading historical encyclopedias?!?!) With World War II being the focus of my interest in history until I transferred to Temple, the classes on Cold War Culture and American history after 1945 changed how I viewed history entirely. After taking these courses I no longer viewed history as memorizing names, dates, and places; instead how it can be used in analyzing the modern world, and how it directly affects us today.
Similar to what was stated in the Burke and Andrews article, a hypothesis on the effects of changing the ratio in a chemical compound can be easily tested in a laboratory; but how could we conduct an experiment on what would have happened if England decided to intervene on behalf of the Confederates in the Civil War? With cotton cultivation being the lifeblood of the Southern economy, one could hypothesize that the war's disruption of trade with England would have been significant enough for political or military action. But such a theory needs to be looked at in greater depth: cotton was being heavily cultivated in Egypt and India during this time, which lowered the market value of cotton, which greatly affected a Southern American economy with far less industrialization and economic diversification than the North. While both Egypt and India were part of the British Empire during the 19th century, would a failed colonization effort have resulted the cotton price skyrocketing during the Civil War with a Southern monopoly? And with the Southern economy built entirely around slavery, would that have played a part in the British decision making process after they abolished slavery in their empire a few decades prior?
The inherent differences in analyzing history and hypothesis in the subject versus science or math is what I find myself drawn to. One hypothesis or “what-if?” results in and endless new chain of hypothetical situations. With this thought process, one can begin to imagine an entirely different series of world events, and a world infinitely different than the one we live in today. This has been the source of inspiration for many authors, musicians, artists, etc.; or it is simply a great way to get lost in your own imagination for hours on end.
|
|
|
|
Post by emiliar29 on May 12, 2016 7:11:44 GMT
Response to Question #1
I put a lot of thought into this question, particularly after reading Andrews/Burke, specifically the "context" section. My experience with history has not been particularly disrupted. My last "official" history class was about four years ago during a college course dealing with the American history from early colonists through the end of the Civil War, while I was still at CUNY. However, I have continued to study history through my pursuit of my Art History degree. I had a lapse in my education for a few years and was not taking college courses, but have still been very involved in digging into art historical archives in order to keep up with my interests.
After reading about the 5 C's of history, Context struck a particular chord with me as an aspiring art historian, but also as a songwriter - I realized that Context is something that I deal with and explore nearly every day. I was surprised at how similar Context in history was to writing lyrics. The quote that struck me most intensely was, "Historians who excel at the art of storytelling often rely heavily upon context." As someone whose art is storytelling (albeit in a different way), this was truly interesting to me. I had never before thought of historians (specifically those who are historians as a profession, or history teachers/professors, etc.) as storytellers, which in my mind is a kind of romantic, sometimes spiritual profession, but as stoic, unfazed messengers who strictly delivered facts as they believed them to be. As cold messengers unwilling to alternative interpretations or question. I use the context and chronology of events of my own personal life to tell my stories through songwriting, as historians use context to tell the story of noteworthy events.
I had never thought that anyone who dealt with any "history" besides art history was so passionate, and so capable of breathing fire into a non-visual subject. Hearing Laurel Ulrich talk was inspiring because she was able to paint a picture with her historical account in "Garrets and Rat-holes" in particular. As I said in my "introduce yourselves" post, I have always believed a passion for history and art are congruent with one another. Through this assignment, I have a renewed sense of how and why history work. History functions so that we can understand where we and our fellow human beings come from, and so that we can learn from that - what mistakes we have made, what achievements we have accomplished, how life changes. I learned that those who communicate our history can be great storytellers.
American history, specifically, became more palatable to me through Ulrich's "Garrets and Rat-holes," when I was able to hear for myself how detailed the speaker was when describing the context, and how passionate, interested, and dedicated she was to the story she was re-telling.
|
|
