|
|
Post by Stephanie Weiner on May 12, 2016 11:55:53 GMT
Response to Question #3
According to James Grossman, executive director of the American Historical Association, historians think differently. He stated that historians tend to think historically. Historians combine the exciting narrative and “so what” question. “Historical thinking” focuses on change, understanding how change happens, why change happens or why it doesn’t happen. However, these historical questions can be applied to any culture and situation and allow not only historians to use historical thinking.
Furthermore, an individual can use historical thinking when reading or even when sitting in a park. Grossman stated that the number of people who learn history by visiting national parks “far eclipses” the number who read books by professional historians. History can be found all around you, and many indiviudals take advantage of this by either visiting landmarks, watching the history channel, or learning their family history. When it comes to my personal experience and learning history, I have gained most of my knowledge in a classroom environment, during AP U.S. History and AP Political Science. However, being able to apply this information and share it with family and peers has only been enhanced by visiting amazing, famous landmarks throughout the New York, Philadelphia, and Washington areas. I have had the opportunity to see monuments in Washington to museum cases that held history of World War II. One has the ability to be his/her own narrative when looking at history by simply using historical thinking. In some cases, the narrative may also be a tour guide, a family member, a peer, a teacher, or even a stranger. There is not one person who defines history and it can be told from several points of view, making learning about history a very unique experience. For instance, I was alive during the unfortunate 9/11 attack. Although this is an event that is historical in American History, the way I narrate and my point-of-view of this event may be different than someone else’s. Only being in the second grade, I still remember that day perfectly- where I was, what I was doing, and even the thoughts going on in my head. It was a day many people lost their lives, and one where I had my family members and my family friends lives at risk. Although I don’t have visual or graphic information, my narrative tells the history of the event from a young second-grade girl who was terrified and worried about her family during the 9/11 attack. It is history that I have shared with others, but once again may also differ from another individual’s memory of the attacks.
All in all, historical thinking can be applied to many contexts and history is found everywhere. However, history has been found to be more accessible by visiting parks and museums then reading books. I think some of the main reasons people enjoy learning history through parks and museums, is the accessibility of learning and being able to see things first hand. Every individual is a different type of learner. Reading books is more of an intrapersonal activity and it may be hard for some readers to relate by simply reading the text in the book versus seeing monuments or displays of history. Second, visiting a museum or park is easier, and less time-consuming than taking time to read a book about history. Last, many museums and parks share history with individuals of all ages. Therefore, children have the opportunity to see displays and learn history. In many cases, historical books are not available to a younger audience. In museums and parks, history can be learned and shared amongst a wider audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie Weiner on May 12, 2016 11:57:50 GMT
Response to Question #3 According to James Grossman, executive director of the American Historical Association, historians think differently. He stated that historians tend to think historically. Historians combine the exciting narrative and “so what” question. “Historical thinking” focuses on change, understanding how change happens, why change happens or why it doesn’t happen. However, these historical questions can be applied to any culture and situation and allow not only historians to use historical thinking. Furthermore, an individual can use historical thinking when reading or even when sitting in a park. Grossman stated that the number of people who learn history by visiting national parks “far eclipses” the number who read books by professional historians. History can be found all around you, and many indiviudals take advantage of this by either visiting landmarks, watching the history channel, or learning their family history. When it comes to my personal experience and learning history, I have gained most of my knowledge in a classroom environment, during AP U.S. History and AP Political Science. However, being able to apply this information and share it with family and peers has only been enhanced by visiting amazing, famous landmarks throughout the New York, Philadelphia, and Washington areas. I have had the opportunity to see monuments in Washington to museum cases that held history of World War II. One has the ability to be his/her own narrative when looking at history by simply using historical thinking. In some cases, the narrative may also be a tour guide, a family member, a peer, a teacher, or even a stranger. There is not one person who defines history and it can be told from several points of view, making learning about history a very unique experience. For instance, I was alive during the unfortunate 9/11 attack. Although this is an event that is historical in American History, the way I narrate and my point-of-view of this event may be different than someone else’s. Only being in the second grade, I still remember that day perfectly- where I was, what I was doing, and even the thoughts going on in my head. It was a day many people lost their lives, and one where I had my family members and my family friends lives at risk. Although I don’t have visual or graphic information, my narrative tells the history of the event from a young second-grade girl who was terrified and worried about her family during the 9/11 attack. It is history that I have shared with others, but once again may also differ from another individual’s memory of the attacks. All in all, historical thinking can be applied to many contexts and history is found everywhere. However, history has been found to be more accessible by visiting parks and museums then reading books. I think some of the main reasons people enjoy learning history through parks and museums, is the accessibility of learning and being able to see things first hand. Every individual is a different type of learner. Reading books is more of an intrapersonal activity and it may be hard for some readers to relate by simply reading the text in the book versus seeing monuments or displays of history. Second, visiting a museum or park is easier, and less time-consuming than taking time to read a book about history. Last, many museums and parks share history with individuals of all ages. Therefore, children have the opportunity to see displays and learn history. In many cases, historical books are not available to a younger audience. In museums and parks, history can be learned and shared amongst a wider audience. |
|
|
|
Post by gabriellerabadi on May 12, 2016 15:03:08 GMT
Question 2: In Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s Huntington lecture, she describes the idea of how history can be made through historical artifacts. Having artifacts can provide clarification and detail with events throughout time and make or break legends. One of the first examples she gives is that of a sampler that was discovered from the early 1800’s. With the sampler, historians were able to identify significant details of who made it, where they made it, and why it was made. Preserving certain historical artifacts can provide so much detail to history and can provide new perspectives on events. Ulrich also talks about broken scissors and thimbles that seemed to be worthless at first but after further investigation it was found that these objects were discovered in the slave quarters of one of Thomas Jefferson’s plantations. With proper and important objects being well documented, they were able to uncover new details about the labor patterns during that time. Preserving particular artifacts can also debunk certain legends that can lead in unnecessary or unfair credibility of certain people. Betsy Ross has always been believed to be a historical icon. She was a female patriot who was considered to be an American heroine because she was the person who created the American flag. According to many different historians, this reputation was based off of false information in which Betsy Ross was no different than any normal flag maker during that time period. Because there was no actual evidence that Betsy Ross created the American flag besides the words of her grandson that was passed down from generation to generation; Ross has been unfairly credited with the creation of our national symbol. Having proper documented artifacts can debunk historical inconsistencies because it shows what actually happened and what was actually there. One myth that has been proven true because of proper restoration of certain historical artifacts is the tale of Vikings that would use a magical gem that would reveal the position of the sun during nighttime. For many years historians debated whether this myth was true or not because it would be the reason why Vikings had the ability to sail at night. In 2013, a team of scientists confirmed that a rock that was discovered earlier that year could have been the alleged sun stone that allowed for them to sail at night. It can be easy to create stories about the past because it can be hard to prove them true or false, but with artifacts it can either provide credibility or destroy it completely.  |
|
|
|
Post by wattsajengineer on May 12, 2016 16:30:05 GMT
I have chosen to respond to the second question regarding how history is perceived and remembered.  This American Flag is not just any old flag, it is the flag that was the inspiration for the writing of our nation's Star Spangled Banner. The story of the origin of our National Anthem is a story that is told in various ways with the addition and omission of certain details. The account that the Smithsonian tells can be easily accessed through a quick search on Google but it is much different than the story that I remembering learning while growing up. I only live about an hour north of Baltimore, and I currently work just south of the city, so visiting Fort McHenry used to be common and I currently pass it on my daily drive. Because of this I was also raised with the story that the guides at the Fort told. To give some background, the Battle of Baltimore started on September 13, 1814 and consisted of 25 hours of British navy bombardments to the fort. This battle was part of the larger War of 1812 and happened only weeks after the British had invaded Washington D.C and burned the Capitol, the Treasury, and the President's House. It was during this fire that First Lady Dolly Madison saved the portrait of George Washington, that is still in the White House today. Francis Scott Key was a lawyer and had traveled into the harbor to a British prison ship to try and negotiate the release of one of his friends, a week before the attack took place. While trying to rescued his friend they both overheard talk of an attack, and were caught listening to the information. The British granted them passage back to their own ship, but they could not leave until after the battle had taken place. So imagine knowing that your city is going to be attacked by the ships that are in the harbor but you can't tell anyone because you are anchored 8 miles out and are not allowed to leave. Key had to sit and watch everything happen. The battle finally happened and then ended in the early morning of September 14. Key looked in the direction of the fort and upon seeing the large American flag, he knew that they had won. He wrote down his thoughts in poem form on a small piece of paper he had, and was not intending on it becoming famous. He showed it to his brother-in-law and he was the one that helped it become famous, by submitting it to the newspaper and renaming it. One interesting thing is that it was not put to music or considered our national anthem until 1914, 100 years after it was written. Also this specific flag is different than the others at that time because it had 15 stars and 15 stripes. Each star and stripe represented a state and the original flag measured 30 feet by 42 feet. So it's no wonder how Key could see it clearly even though he was eight miles away. I find it interesting how certain parts of this story are taught in schools and museums and how other details are left out of the explanation. For example, I was always taught that Key was captured and held prisoner on the prison ship until the battle was over, not that he had initially gone into the harbor to help get a friend out of prison. The way the story is told each time, whether with certain details or without, I think it is a symbol of the perseverance we had as a nation. Baltimore was a great port city and if we had lost that battle we might have lost the war. It showed a people that even after being torn down and out numbered we could still win. Today I feel the differences in the stories only show that the details are not important for there to be unity among a people. |
|
|
|
Post by rheajain on May 12, 2016 17:01:53 GMT
Response to Question one:
In sophomore year of high school, I was required to take U.S. History. Our final in that class was a 9-12 page research paper on whatever we wanted to write about. However every question I presented to my teacher was rejected. Now I realize that none of those questions were good enough because they did not ask Grossman's question "So what?”- in other words, why does this matter to us. I always believed that history only included the facts and the major decisions that were made but by listening to Grossman and reading about Betsy Ross, I now know that history is not only what a country or a person or a group of people did; it is how these decisions affected people and what people find important about these events. For example, Ulrich states that no one cares about the details of the flag, they care about Betsy Ross and her story.
Through all of the resource materials I read and listened to, I understand that history is made by connections. It is the third C - Contingency. Andrews and Burke state that we must “think deeply about past, present, and future”. They argue this because history is not, against what I previously thought, a chronological order of events. This means that history is not set in stone and can change as more things come to light and how the future is shaped based on history. It is more than just accepting that Betsy Ross made the first flag; it is about how she changed the future for women who wanted to do something to help in the war and the future.
I believe I have a good basic understanding of history through the resources we read and listened to. History is the study of the past present and the future. Our past decisions made us who we are and brought us where we are today; they will also shape our tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisdigi on May 12, 2016 17:27:37 GMT
Response to question #1
I feel that I've had an interest in history, or least American history. In the formal setting, social studies was always my favorite class while most of my classmates dreaded it. Although I can't say that I have a lot of experience, I've always tried to gain more information because I feel it helps us better understand conditions that we live with today. Outside the classroom, I remember my Dad and I would always go to Revolutionary War reenactments whether it be a the Moland House, Valley Forge or George Washington's Crossing. Being able to interact with the actors was a more enjoyable experience than just reading out of a textbook. Even though the TV offers no interaction, I always enjoy watching the History Channel or CNN specials about the 60s, 70s, etc. I guess this is my first college-level history course and I'm looking forward to getting a better understanding of analyzing history.
The Andrews and Burke article about the five C's made total sense to me. I remember a lot of classes in high school had just a "memorization" model, as the authors call it. I think that was a problem because historians don't do any bullet-point list of dates/events in their work. Yes, the dates and what happened must be included but it is way more involved than that. The contingency aspect can take a timeline and then go further to explain how a previous occurrence or event effected a future one. I guess one could say this is part of the "why" something happened. When Jim Grossman was explaining historical thinking he used the "so what?" response question. He explains that is what historians answer in regards to the five C's. Maybe I just never really thought about it because I was always interested in history. People such as those in my high school who dreaded history, they'd say "who cares" or "so what". If our teachers used this model instead of the bullet-list or timeline, I think those people would better appreciate history because they'd understand its importance and how it has shaped the present.
|
|
|
|
Post by robgallagher on May 12, 2016 18:09:56 GMT
I have taken a college level history class but honestly I didn't learn anything different that I already knew. I often find myself reading books on certain periods of history in my free time so I know a good amount, however I don't know everything. That being said, one thing that I did learn, Andrews and Burke discuss the five Cs that they believe define the groundwork of historical thinking. I didn't really think about it at first but everyone can read something that happened in history and think why did they do that? Its very important that people understand that time brings change, so people have to think like people did in that time period to know exactly why people did the things they did. I do it all the time but I didn't realize that many people don't put themselves in that time period. For example, it was common knowledge that people believed that Betsy Ross made the first American flag, but after reading the Ulrich article, that in fact might be false. After getting into the readings and looking at all the facts, that chronology doesn't match. This proves that as historians go deeper into history and actually looking at the facts, things that can be a lot different then originally thought. These readings allowed me to get a better understanding of what historians do and it isn't as easy as it seems.
|
|
|
|
Post by daotran2016 on May 12, 2016 18:25:21 GMT
Question 1:
Truth be told, I have not taken a history class since high school. I was born and raised half of my life in Vietnam, I still remember my very negative experience with history class when I was there. Back in the day, Vietnam was more communist than today, and that reflected strongly in the teachers, their techniques, what they taught, didn't teach, and how they taught it. To put it kind of short, the Vietnamese history class only taught historical events from centuries ago with a lot of time gaps in between. I noticed that they were only teaching the "good stories" and there was never any "bad ones". Especially with the Vietnam War, they taught us in a way that was brainwashing, I noticed even at a young age. They would hype Ho Chi Minh (the Communist Leader) and emphasized very much on his "Godlike" complex and how he "saved" the nation from traitors and foreigners, and that those who opposed were punished and sent to jail even death. The most interesting thing was that my teacher would specifically teach us that your loyalty to Communism, to Ho Chi Minh was indefinitely priority, even before your loyalty to your parents - that if your parents were against the ways of Ho Chi Minh, it was our duty to report them to the government, and we would be praised for that. My parents lived through the war and experienced it first hand, I trust their stories about their lives before, during, and after the war more than the 20-something teacher who had never experienced it. So since a very young age, I started "disliking" history classes because I found that I couldn't trust the person who taught it, and that I wanted to be able to form my own opinions and interpretations based on the facts that were given, not based on some political beliefs. Studying history in the US is different, not brainwashing, but I found that the teachers often quizzed us on the exact dates, names, and locations, and not much on what we could take away from the historical events.
For the readings, especially the 5 C's, I've learned a new and a more credible way of studying history - unlike how I've been doing it all my life. It's given me a guideline to question a historical context, any context really. If I had not read about the 5 C's, when reading the Betsy Ross story, I would have just thought of it as nothing more than: a lady named Betsy Ross made the first flag. With the 5 C's in mind, I question: Why is she such a memorable person in history? Almost as memorable and "heroic like" such as George Washington? She only made a flag, what was so impressive about that? Because of these questions, I digged more into the story, and learned that she did not simply just made a flag, that she actually sacrificed a lot. She worked very long hours even over nights to ensure the perfection of the flag. If the flag had not been stitched securely, it would have been lost with many of the fort's defenders who sacrificed their lives to protect this country. So I've learned that she and other women were definitely heroic in many ways. After watching the videos, the historians taught me that "It's harder to ask a good question than to answer it". That opened my eyes to many things, I realized that historians are not just people who read stories and remember them, they are people who have the ability to to immerse their curiosity into the context and ask all the really good questions so that they make sure that what we are learning is "correct", or more credible, things that we other wise would not have thought of. Learning history the correct way requires one to think, interpret, and organize important information - to find inconsistencies and question the credibility of the context.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey Langello on May 12, 2016 19:30:41 GMT
There is a lot of importance in what gets remembered or saved in history. History isn’t always about world wars, the collapse of a nation, or assassinations. In the Laurel Thatcher Ulrich lecture she talks about finding history in “old houses, Garrets, and rat holes”. This type of history probably won’t be found in history textbooks. Laurel talks about watching antiques road show where someone came in with clock that was just sitting in a family member’s attic. Some of the family history of the clock was that the led weights were melted down and used for ammunition. It ended up being appraised between 125k-150k. She also talks about a house in Bedford County near Lynchburg, VA once owned by Thomas Jefferson. When it was renovated they found generations of rats in the staircase. From the nest they could tell the daily and routine behavior between 1946-1946. There were candy wrappers, pieces of clothing, scraps of hand written letters etc. I found this lecture to be very interesting an informative. When I think of history I always think of the usual things you read in textbooks. I guess I never really took the time to think about the smaller history of let’s say an old house. I thought about if I could relate to either of these stories with my own family history. My grandmother passed away in November and my family and I had to clean out her house. When it came time to clean out the attic (UGH..old people such pack rats) we found a homemade grandfather clock that was built by my great grandfather, two lamps from my great great grandfather. Nothing of monetary value but value to the family. My aunts and uncles still remember the stories behind them which were very interesting to hear.
|
|
|
|
Post by tburckh1 on May 12, 2016 19:50:51 GMT
Question #3 History cannot just be read in textbooks or scholarly journals. It has to be seen, smelled, and felt. History is live. It’s never changing. Even though some historical sites are no longer standing, the remembrance is still there. I rather physical go to a historical place then to just read about it from someone else perspective. I like to have my own intake about an object, person, or site. James Grossman makes a valid point that that historical sites such as museums and historical site are important to our public culture, and that history is very important to people. I have taken a few English and History courses at Temple U where I had to visit a museum or historical site in Philadelphia. To read about something that has impacted our city is one thing, but to actually go to the place is completely different. It holds a different meaning, a different feeling. The saying goes, “seeing is believing” and i believe that to be true. We all know who was Betsy Ross and her story. She lived in Philadelphia during the American Revolution and (supposedly) sew the first American flag. We read about her so many times that its ‘history’. Yet, actually going to her home on Arch Street and seeing how she lived and interaction with her (the historical interpreter) makes her seem more real. Makes history seem more real. I think history is more accessible in museums and historical sites because, in my opinion, people are more attracted to things that they can physically see. Not to say that reading historical books is boring, it's just not the same as walking the steps of Benjamin Franklin, or talking to a historical interpreter and feel like you are really talking to someone who lived during that time. I met Ms. Elizabeth Claypoole (played by Carol Spacht) during an event in Olde City featuring her and author Marla Miller. Talking to Ms. Claypoole/Spacht made me feel like I was actually talking to the upholster of the Revolution. I would not have gotten that some feeling if i would had read about her in Miller’s new book. History is not only suppose to be read, but experienced.  |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpalaia on May 12, 2016 19:59:27 GMT
Having taken such a long time from secondary education (1/4 century), my perspective is more shaped by independent life experiences than institutional programs. I went to a fantastic high school in an accelerated academic program, so my foundation in academia is pretty solid. In my personal life, my family on my maternal side has been steeped in pride in recording their lineage, as well as civic and political contributions. There are a lot of servicemen, including a brigadier general in Washington's Continental Army, state & federal house representatives and senators, and probably too many lawyers, lol. So history has played a significant role in my life and the "5 Cs" are a great way to look at history, that I never thought of. Now, studying political science, I'm exposed to a finer and more objective exploration of historical issues and their overlap into my anthropological studies, especially in contemporary policy applications and ramifications is becoming the lens through which I see the world. Luckily (or not), I also took a 21 year break from television, haven't had almost half of my life mediated by it, and have an embarrassingly extensive library that includes a large amount of historical material, since I don't read much fiction at all. I think the simple and eloquent format of the videos are valuable at conveying the material in easy-to-absorb fragments and are something I already appreciate.
|
|
|
|
Post by micathcart on May 13, 2016 0:17:54 GMT
I’ve had a fair amount of experience studying history; it is a subject that has interested me since I was young. However, my appreciation for history has evolved significantly as my study of the subject became more in depth. Before I began to study history at Temple, I thought it was simply the study/collection of facts. I was graced with several amazing history teachers throughout middle and high school, but I was always taught out of a textbook making history feel distant. I’ve since learned it is much more complex than what can be contained in a textbook. As Jim Grossman explained, “history is about what is important and why it is important.” What I find most fascinating is the “what” and the “why” can be (and often are) different for everybody. This makes historical perceptions change as the perceiver evolves to the cultural dynamics of his/her society.
This dynamic nature of history is exemplified in how national figures are remembered. The myth of Betsy Ross has captivated the public and infiltrated textbooks to become a “truth” of history. As Laurel Ulrich argues, Betsy Ross has become a national icon and the question of the validity of her grandson’s story is rather irrelevant. The far more important question is why Betsy Ross has become such a beloved character in American memory? Also, why has the interest in her story today spurred a debate on it validity?
I believe that Betsy Ross became an allegorical figure akin to “Uncle Sam” and “Rosie the Riveter.” She is a physical figure (where she differs from the previous two examples) that represents the dense and complicated history of patriot women. US society has a tendency of simplifying the nation’s history (to fit it in a textbook).
|
|
|
|
Post by kylokaitlyn on May 13, 2016 2:16:56 GMT
History has been an aspect of my education since I was just about six years old and in Kindergarten. From then, the facts and stories evolved and became more in depth--painting that picture in my mind of what made our world what it is today. However, there is a significant difference between experiencing a piece of history and just reading about it. In response to question 3, I have to agree that visiting a national park or a museum has taught me so much. This makes me think back to my time in Paris. I remember walking through the gardens of the Versailles palace, just in awe at the complexity and size and beauty of a garden that was created back around the 18th century. I remember thinking and feeling bad that the gardeners back in that time would never live to see how enormous and beautiful everything looked in our present time. I remember walking through the palace and literally standing in the bed chamber of King Louis XIV. I was LIVING in history. I felt such a connection and closeness with something that happening centuries ago--a feeling that is much more real than experiencing it through memorization of a text book. I had the opportunity to visit le Louvre and stand mere feet away from the Mona Lisa or the grand Coronation of Napoleon. There is such a difference between googling it on your cell phone. It is the experience that makes it so real. The readings are informative and important, but I find it hard to make that connection. There is not that feeling of awe that you can take from a museum or any other historical place. As I had stated originally, it is about the experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by tylerg033 on May 13, 2016 10:24:05 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. Reply: I found your response to be very intriguing read and something made me think about what I like to do better and how this world that we live has changed over the years. I tend to agree that some history books can have to much content and not enough information on the actually history and that there are other ways to take in this history in more fulfilling manner. I understand wanting to go see and touch history and completely agree when it comes to that but I also find that reading about history can allow you to imagine and create your own image in your mind that may be more useful than anything you can see with your eyes. History can be read about or seen and both ways have pros and cons but by being able to understand through history in both of these ways can really allow us to learn a lot more than we had originally thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie Weiner on May 13, 2016 19:51:26 GMT
Reading the Thomas Andrews and Flannery Burke article, the "context" section of the 5 C's struck my attention as well. The article stated that context is the most engaging element of historical thinking. I agree, that this is the most engaging element for both the historian and learner. In addition, as stated in the Jim Grossman video, not only historians are limited to historical thinking! Reading your post, as a musical artist yourself, you have the ability to think historically as well. The context of your artwork, such as a song lyrics, is a very important aspect that will ultimately display your historical thinking. As historians excel at the art of storytelling rely on context, an artist writing lyrics to produce a hit song must also rely on context. Similarly, as a dancer myself, I have also relied heavily on context to tell stories or share themes during a dance performance. I do this through different movements, relying on accents in the music (if there is any), and through emotional expression. Furthermore, I believe that it is important to focus on the 5 C's, especially context if you are trying to engage others in what you are doing or thinking. the article states that teaching context to students can be done easily, such as the game "Fact, Fiction, or Creative Memory."
This game allows students to think historically by looking at context and making distinctions.
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.
|
|
