|
|
Post by rheajain on May 14, 2016 18:37:21 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. I agree with what you are saying. History changes over time because as we learn more, our perspective on history and what has happened changes as well. The fact that a couple years ago Pluto used to be a planet and now it is just one instance that history changes as time moves on. The fact that Betsy Ross made the flag was not important, but that SHE made the flag was important. As for the 5 C's, I agree that causality is the most interesting one. Andrew/Burke state that "historians cannot alter past conditions to produce new information. Rather, they must base their arguments upon the interpretation of partial primary sources that frequently offer multiple explanations for a single event". This I believe is the most important line out of the causality paragraph, since it outlines what history is and how it is made. |
|
|
|
Post by micathcart on May 14, 2016 21:33:30 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." Your story about the origins of the United State's national anthem reminded me of the Drunk History episode of the same topic. Drunk History, despite being a comedy show, has become one of my favorite history shows because it concerns itself only with a very specific topic, allowing for nuances to enfold that otherwise would be lost in a textbook. Both Drunk History and the stories told by historical site tour guides allow for a greater engagement with the general public and enable historical discussion, which relates to Jim Grossman's views on the role of historians in relation to the public. Also, to address your intrigue about the discrepancies among the different stories told about Francis Scott Key's poem. I, too, find it interesting how different groups or individuals with different motives present different narratives. While this is often associated with the euphemism, "the victors write history," and whitewashing atrocities, it is not always of sinister intent. As you pointed out, historians in a museum, a classroom, or at the historical site all can have different narratives. I think this is because of the different goals of each of the historian's roles. At the historic site, the tour guides are attempting to bridge time and make history seem exciting to the general public. |
|
|
|
Post by daotran2016 on May 14, 2016 23:47:11 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. I find connection with this. I wouldn't call it embarrassing that you have an extensive library of historical books, I also have an extensive library of books, mostly non-fiction and a lot of autobiographies. I myself have not watched television for years either, I decided to read books instead for entertainment. This decision changed my life for the better because that had allowed me to become not only a faster reader but also a better speaker. The "5 Cs" is a new context for me also and now I will be applying to all of my readings, especially in autobiography books. |
|
|
|
Post by daotran2016 on May 15, 2016 0:03:20 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. I agree. As one of the students who "dreaded" through history classes in high school, I often did because I questioned "who cares?" and "so what?" constantly. Most of my experiences with history class exams were based on memorization only, especially on the exact dates. If the 5 C's were introduced to me in high school, that would have sparked my interests in history more because the 5 C's to me not only is a basic guideline to ask when reading / writing a historical context, but it is also a basic guideline to question every information that you will come across. Now I understand more that learning about history, about some events happened a long time ago, is not much different from learning about events happening currently or recently. We ought to question and properly decipher whether an information is credible or bias / non bias. I think that a lot of people are not educated enough, or not aware of how misinformed they can about an information. Many people will just listen and believe a message / propraganda right away without a healthy amount of curiosity, skepticism, or questions for the "truth". I believe that this type of ignorance causes a lot of misunderstandings which leads to more problems than solutions to a conflict. Going side track here, but back to historians. When it comes to studying a culture or event that has happened so long ago that no survivor or witness is alive, I think that their job is important because they have the right mind to question and interpret small pieces of the puzzles and put them back in a larger picture that would make the most sense in the simplest way for other people. For example, if I were to have come across a tablet or a clay vase with symbols and pictures on them from the Cleopatra Egyptian era, I would have no idea what they are trying to say and knowing me, I can not make up my mind about something that I am not sure about. But historians have this mindset that is different than mine, that can see, feel, and almost "empathize" with the evidence and are able to confidently come up an interpretation, in which we then learn almost as a "fact" in school. |
|
|
|
Post by daotran2016 on May 15, 2016 0:14:36 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. 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! Thank you Professor Hausmann! You are right, you brought up a great point. Maybe I should also consider the teacher's / communist's view of Ho Chi Minh also. I read a quote somewhere that says something like "a terrorist of one country is a patriot of their own". I can not find the exact quote anywhere on google. Regardless, I guess Ho Chi Minh could be considered a hero to the communists and people who are really opposed to outsiders. I remember being taught that Ho Chi Minh did not trust the American's intention in helping Vietnam and that he would rather his own people take over his own people versus an outsider taking over his people, again (Vietnam had been conquered by the Chinese for almost a thousand years and the French). For now, it's all just talks, no solid evidence yet. Maybe one day. |
|
|
|
Post by ksteck44 on Jun 20, 2016 8:30:44 GMT
Response to Question #1:
History has always been a significant part of my life both personally and academically. I really realized my love for it in fourth grade when we were discussing the Maya and my interest has grown from there. When listening to Ulrich's very interesting podcast she brought up a point that I am very familiar with and is always an interesting topic. Ulrich discusses the meaning and value of artifacts according to historians in comparison to those outside of the field of study who may view artifacts as valuable for different reasons. Being in the field of anthropology, this is a question I continue to think about as go through my studies. There are times when that seems an even more intricate question for archaeologists as we are often finding valuable artifacts that most likely look like a normal, uninteresting rock to outsiders. I have obviously had a lot of experience with history and the studies related to it. I recognize that there are disconnects between history and archaeology and that they are two different fields of study, and listening to Ulrich really solidified that notion. However, the two work very closely together and are often encouraged to work together in order to find out as much information as possible. And that brings me to what I feel, from what I've read and observed myself, is the core of historical study, and anthropological study as well: the desire for information. I am not only talking about the desire to observe and inform oneself of the findings, I am talking about the desire to take those findings and share them with others, spread the information so that others may become informed. It is not only a matter of spreading the information either, it is the need to inform and educate in a way that will portray the subjects of study in an accurate and appropriate sense. For example, during the Spring semester I took a course in museum exhibition and design, and in this course we created a display representing the people of prehistoric Pennsylvania. Throughout the project a question that constantly needed to be addressed was "are we showing these peoples in a way that is accurate and sensitive to the subject?". And that is a question that will always need to be asked, as that is our goal, to inform others in the most appropriate way possible and in a way that will allow them to see the value we see in these subjects. It may seem like just some rusty old piece of metal to an outside observer but put it in the hands of an historian and it becomes a part to an old carriage that helped transport a rich, important family. In summation, I feel the how and why of history will be questions infinitely asked in the field, and they may change meaning from historian to historian. However, there is a common goal, a common recognized value in the study, and this is what we desire those outside of the field to realize and appreciate.
|
|
