Week 1 Discussion Questions

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.



My Response: What a fascinating post! While not nearly as dramatic, I had a similar experience with a family member's version of history running up against academic history. My grandfather fought in the Pacific during WWII and was part of the Bataan Death March (more info here). Because of this event, he always believed General MacArthur to have been a terrible general, someone who caused him great personal pain and a traitor. I don't have particularly strong opinions on MacArthur, but lots of people in my family really do feel this way. Once, while talking about some WWII history book I read at a family gathering, I made the mistake of mentioning that MacArthur was undergoing a critical reappraisal by historians and lots now felt he was underrated in the Pacific theater of the war. You can guess how that went over!

Personal experiences with "big" historical events and actors can color people's impressions in important ways. What I realized after this is that NO one is unbiased in their version of history, even professional historians. Everyone has their own perspectives about who the "villains" and "heroes" of history are. Where interesting analysis happens is when we look at WHY we view a certain person or event or place in a certain way. Why did my grandfather believe MacArthur caused him such pain? Why did my family continue thinking this sixty years later? This is where the action happens in history!

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.

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.






Stephanie,

I agree with you when you say that history is everywhere; it can range from an old tree to a newspaper or to even a toy from the past. Because history is everywhere and in all aspects of society, we should definitely use historical thinking wherever we go! Asking questions about everyday situations should be embraced and encouraged in a society that is diverse and rapidly changing. Asking questions can provide clarity and allow for a different perspective so historical thinking is very important in all aspects of society and should be used more often than you think. 

Great job!

Gabrielle Rabadi 

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.

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.












Gabrielle this was a great post. Alot of the history that we are aware of now comes from artifacts that the people in the past made. From Native American spear heads, to clay pots and pans in the Aztec era, without these object we would know very little about these civilizations. History is so important to all of us because it tells a story of were we where and where we are going, without knowing about our past, we cannot plan for our future. What artifacts will we leave behind so that the population of the future will know about us, what does all of our objects and techology tell us about the way we are living? Life has certainly improved since the days of the past, but will our lifestyles be enough to leave an impression on the people of the future?