Monday January 23, 2012
Today's topics were simultancity and historical truth. Simultancity is the interdependence of events, like when two things happen at the same time, but in different places. Simultaneous inventions are a key indicator that people around the world think quite similar. For example, when looking at the history of England, France, and the United States, all countries claim that they created the first motion pictures! It is quite difficult to tell who actually did create the first movies because they all were created so close together. Other inventions include the telephone and electricity. Simultaneous inventions can be beneficial to countries because they can form alliances based on their common interests. Simultaneous inventions can sometimes lead to trouble, however. This article describes how when two people create the same thing, only the person who gets the patent is able to continue to use the invention: patents on inventions. Other people, such as Bill Gates, have even admitted to simply sitting around with friends just to think up ideas: Bill Gates & Friends. The world just recently reached the 7 billion people mark, but simultaneous inventions have been happening for hundreds of years and will surely continue to become more frequent.
Another topic from today was historical truth. Historical truth is a genuine existence, or, a fact that no one doubts. Typically only dates of events fall into this category because anything more than pure fact can be considered an onion. A historical fact has 5 parts: actors, action, places, times, and sources. An example of this would be: 'The American Army defeated the British Army at the Battle of Saratoga on October 17, 1777 under General John Burgoyne." All parts of that sentence can be verified by using historical documents. A sentence such as: "The American Army defeated the British Army at the Battle of Saratoga because the American Army was better than the British" is not a good example because it leaves out key facts and uses an opinion, but nothing to back that opinion up.
Historical truth also means that there are two sides to every story. For example, when looking at the Civil War, both sides (north and south) believed that they were fighting to defend their own ideas, beliefs, and country. It is difficult to decide who was "right" in their way of thinking.
Historical truth also deals with actual history versus memory. As stated before, historical truth contains pure facts, memories, on the other hand, can be incorrect on so many different levels. Memories can be easily influenced, exaggerated, and distorted. An example would be the terrorist attack on September 11th. That was the major event our my generation (much like the assassination of JFK was for my mother and Pearl Harbor was for my grandmother). After these major events people often like to talk about what they were doing when the event happened. So when describing your experience are you going to say "I slept through 9/11 and my parents told me about it later"?? NO! This was the major event of your time! You are going to make sometime up to sound more interesting such as: "My parents pulled me out of school, we watched the news for hours, and later we volunteered at a soup kitchen" (or something alone those lines). Memories can also be distorted due to the media and what other people tell you. This can often be called the public memory. The public memory is what the majority of people usually believe, but not always. So when the news is on and the reporter says "China felt grieve-stricken" take it with a grain of salt. Yes, something bad probably happened in China and people are sad, but not everyone falls into that category. So, from this analysis, one can conclude that there is not always a connection between historical truth and memory because memories can be so easily manipulated.
The same conclusion can be draw from researching the Civil War. Many historians hardest job is to not look at history through they eyes of today's standards. They must consciously place themselves in the time period that they are studying. We can't look back at history and say that Lincoln only wanted the Civil War to happen because he wanted to end slavery once and for-all because slavery is immoral. When looked at through Lincoln's time, he actually was not entirely in favor of slavery, but he wanted to end it because he knew that the North would never win the war unless they used African American troops. So, when looking at documents when people describe why Lincoln was a good president, one must remember that they are reading someone's memories and opinions, not a fact. And, yes, it is often difficult to tell the difference between the two and it takes a trained mind to be good at it.
So, as we discusssed in this class, it is easy to tell what someone's argument is, but it is more difficult to tell why a person was arguing this and their particular views on a subject. Sticking with the Lincoln ending slavery example, it is a known fact that Lincoln ended slavery, but the reason why he did it can be a different story. Did he end slavery because it was immoral, because he needed troops, or for some other reason? A person must be able to look at history through the eyes of the time, be able to tell the difference between truth, opinion, and memory, and then draw an educated conclusion. This process can take a long time to learn and master, but once you know how history will be all the more interesting and debatable.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Historical Scale
Wednesday January 11, 2012
Today's topic was historical scale. Historical scale is the level in which a subject is being presented. There are two different scales: Mirco-History and Macro-History. Micro-History began to grow during the 1980s and is still building momentum. Mirco-History deals with people, places, and events in history on a small scale. This type of approach can be very detailed and can describe how a certain type of people lived. An example of Mirco-History would be focusing on a small village in Vietnam during the 1960s and 70s. This history would focus on how the war directly effected a small group of people including: what they believed, how they lived, how the war effected them, and more. Micro-History can be very interesting, but it has it's downfalls. For instance, because this type of history only focuses on a small area, it can be overlooked or not though to be as important as a history that deals with a larger region.
Next, is Macro-History. This is the type of history that everyone is familiar with because almost every textbook K-12 is written from a Macro-History stand point. Macro-History looks at history as a whole. It is a very general history. An example of Macro-History would simply be a book on the Vietnam War. This would be a general overview of the war and would only include major battles and things that are considered most important. Macro-History is very impersonal and does not touch base upon specific people and how they are effected by an event. Macro-History is also used to compare different events in history at a glance (such as comparing World War I to World War II).
In order to find interesting and useful history, people need to use a middle-level perspective. This way, a broad event is being explained and how it effected many people, but it will also go into details about specific groups of people. By using this approach, a reading can compare events from a broad scale, but also compare how individual groups felt about the event. For example, a book about the Vietnam War that tells both the American side and the Vietnamese side of the war would be helpful. Both sides are present and can be compared using thoughts, actions, beliefs, and more.
Our Lincoln's Constitution book is mainly Micro-History because it only discusses the time period in which Lincoln was alive and the Civil War era. The book does not include anything about any other country besides the U.S. The text does, however, do an excellent job at describing what different people thought of the ideas of slavery, civil war, constitutionalism, sovereignty, and more. The book is not so much of a debate about slavery, as it is a debate about if the Southern states had the right to succeed from the Union. The issue of slavery was simply used to justify reasons for succession. From our debate on Wednesday, a good question was brought up: would a co-presidency where a Northern elected president and a Southern elected president work? If both presidents had equally shared powers, would America have avoided the Civil War and the succession crisis? In my personal opinion, no it would not have worked. Both presidents would have eventually tried to get the upper hand and would not want to work together on anything. Each president would put issues that were in his region's best interest first. During the actual Civil War there were two presidents: Lincoln and Davis. Neither of these two men could come together in order to reach a settlement to end the war, so they probably would not have accomplished much before the war and succession either. With an issue such as the U.S. Civil War, Micro-History is better to use because it can give an in-depth view. Macro-History would just give the general points of the war, but the reader would still be wanting to know what people were thinking during the time. I truly enjoy history, but when it comes down to it, I like to do two things: read about Macro-History to get the general details, then, if I am still interested, gather information on a micro-level in order to further understand the situations, events, and impacts.
Today's topic was historical scale. Historical scale is the level in which a subject is being presented. There are two different scales: Mirco-History and Macro-History. Micro-History began to grow during the 1980s and is still building momentum. Mirco-History deals with people, places, and events in history on a small scale. This type of approach can be very detailed and can describe how a certain type of people lived. An example of Mirco-History would be focusing on a small village in Vietnam during the 1960s and 70s. This history would focus on how the war directly effected a small group of people including: what they believed, how they lived, how the war effected them, and more. Micro-History can be very interesting, but it has it's downfalls. For instance, because this type of history only focuses on a small area, it can be overlooked or not though to be as important as a history that deals with a larger region.
Next, is Macro-History. This is the type of history that everyone is familiar with because almost every textbook K-12 is written from a Macro-History stand point. Macro-History looks at history as a whole. It is a very general history. An example of Macro-History would simply be a book on the Vietnam War. This would be a general overview of the war and would only include major battles and things that are considered most important. Macro-History is very impersonal and does not touch base upon specific people and how they are effected by an event. Macro-History is also used to compare different events in history at a glance (such as comparing World War I to World War II).
In order to find interesting and useful history, people need to use a middle-level perspective. This way, a broad event is being explained and how it effected many people, but it will also go into details about specific groups of people. By using this approach, a reading can compare events from a broad scale, but also compare how individual groups felt about the event. For example, a book about the Vietnam War that tells both the American side and the Vietnamese side of the war would be helpful. Both sides are present and can be compared using thoughts, actions, beliefs, and more.
Our Lincoln's Constitution book is mainly Micro-History because it only discusses the time period in which Lincoln was alive and the Civil War era. The book does not include anything about any other country besides the U.S. The text does, however, do an excellent job at describing what different people thought of the ideas of slavery, civil war, constitutionalism, sovereignty, and more. The book is not so much of a debate about slavery, as it is a debate about if the Southern states had the right to succeed from the Union. The issue of slavery was simply used to justify reasons for succession. From our debate on Wednesday, a good question was brought up: would a co-presidency where a Northern elected president and a Southern elected president work? If both presidents had equally shared powers, would America have avoided the Civil War and the succession crisis? In my personal opinion, no it would not have worked. Both presidents would have eventually tried to get the upper hand and would not want to work together on anything. Each president would put issues that were in his region's best interest first. During the actual Civil War there were two presidents: Lincoln and Davis. Neither of these two men could come together in order to reach a settlement to end the war, so they probably would not have accomplished much before the war and succession either. With an issue such as the U.S. Civil War, Micro-History is better to use because it can give an in-depth view. Macro-History would just give the general points of the war, but the reader would still be wanting to know what people were thinking during the time. I truly enjoy history, but when it comes down to it, I like to do two things: read about Macro-History to get the general details, then, if I am still interested, gather information on a micro-level in order to further understand the situations, events, and impacts.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
First Group Discussion (Chapter 1 & 2)
Wednesday, January 11 was our first group discussion. I was not sure exactly how this debate would work, but Michael had excellent questions that got me thinking about many different things. Ever since I was little I was always told that Lincoln was a good president because he ended slavery and won the Civil War for the Union, but that is not the entire truth. The first question on the agenda discussed Lincoln's racist views. The class talked about how someone can be racist, but still believe that slavery is morally wrong. Lincoln was similar to this because in order to win the Civil War Lincoln needed troops, so he wanted to end slavery and use the freed African Americans in his Army. Lincoln knew that if he didn't get more soldiers the south would win. He actually asked Frederick Douglas for help in recruiting! Lincoln didn't particularly like slavery, but he did think that African Americans were on a different intellectual, social, and economic level than himself.
Michael did a good job in creating questions, especially hypothetical ones. One of the best questions was "What would have happened to the Constitution of the United States if the South had instead won the Civil War? (Would it have been rewritten, would it have been replaced with the Confederacy's Constitution?)
This is an excellent question because there are so many possibilities! Many people, including myself, do not know that the Confederate actually had their own constitution. After doing some research I found a website that has the Confederate Constitution. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
This constitution actually sounds quite similar to that of the Union, but with a greater emphasis on the power of the states, not the federal government. I do actually believe that if the South had won the Civil War they would have instituted their constitution over the entire country. Though this constitution would probably have been changed over the years (like our current one has), it addresses many main points.
Professor Butters brought up an excellent idea for our senior seminar papers: compare and contrast the constitutions of the Union and Confederacy. This seems like it would be a very detailed, in depth, and interest essay and I plan on keeping that idea in mind when the time comes.
One thing I realized from this first group discussion was that the leader should be able to answer his/her own questions and have specific points to be made on each question. It seemed like Michael just wrote the questions down and had a little idea of what the answers were, but he could have done a better job engaging the class and promoting more debate. Overall, I believe it was a good first discussion and I look forward to more! I do, however, need to take more notes from my readings and mark certain passages that make good points. These discussions are exactly what real historians do on topics because it is easy to believe that your own answer is correct and the only answer, but after discussions with fellow peers, a person's eyes can be opened to new possibilities and ideas. I can't wait for the next discussion with new ideas, questions,a and points to be made.
Michael did a good job in creating questions, especially hypothetical ones. One of the best questions was "What would have happened to the Constitution of the United States if the South had instead won the Civil War? (Would it have been rewritten, would it have been replaced with the Confederacy's Constitution?)
This is an excellent question because there are so many possibilities! Many people, including myself, do not know that the Confederate actually had their own constitution. After doing some research I found a website that has the Confederate Constitution. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
This constitution actually sounds quite similar to that of the Union, but with a greater emphasis on the power of the states, not the federal government. I do actually believe that if the South had won the Civil War they would have instituted their constitution over the entire country. Though this constitution would probably have been changed over the years (like our current one has), it addresses many main points.
Professor Butters brought up an excellent idea for our senior seminar papers: compare and contrast the constitutions of the Union and Confederacy. This seems like it would be a very detailed, in depth, and interest essay and I plan on keeping that idea in mind when the time comes.
One thing I realized from this first group discussion was that the leader should be able to answer his/her own questions and have specific points to be made on each question. It seemed like Michael just wrote the questions down and had a little idea of what the answers were, but he could have done a better job engaging the class and promoting more debate. Overall, I believe it was a good first discussion and I look forward to more! I do, however, need to take more notes from my readings and mark certain passages that make good points. These discussions are exactly what real historians do on topics because it is easy to believe that your own answer is correct and the only answer, but after discussions with fellow peers, a person's eyes can be opened to new possibilities and ideas. I can't wait for the next discussion with new ideas, questions,a and points to be made.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
First Day of Class (1-9-12)
Well Monday was the first day of Problems in History. I was a little skeptical of this class at first, it being writing intensive and all, but the professor seems really interesting. I believe that the first day of class is a lasting impression because most students do not know what to expect from a new teacher, but Professor Butters seems like one of those teachers who absolutely love what he does and really wants the students to get engaged and be able to walk away from a class knowing that they learned a lot of useful things that they can use in the future. The first class I actually learned something that I have never encountered in my life: that a historical definition has 5 parts! Throughout the years teachers have led me to believe that basically anything that is stated in print (like a textbook) must be taken as fact. As I have observed over the last few years, this is simply not true. I was reading over the class syllabus and it seems like there will be a lot of interesting things in this course. I am really looking forward to the Lincoln exhibit in the library and the Doris Kearns Goodwin speech. Being a history major, and someone who simply loves to read, I find it an amazing experience to meet authors. Over the summer I went to Pigeon Forge TN and actually met the author of "1912 Facts About Titanic," Lee W. Merideth. I love the Titanic and I have heard his name a lot in my personal researches and was thrilled to meet him. We talked for a long time and I was able to ask a bunch of questions. My mom was actually so amazed that she bought me his most recent book and he signed it just for me! It might sound kind of boring for some people, but I love history and reading, so it was quite the experience for me! So getting back on track, I haven't read any of Goodwin's books yet, but I plan to go to a bookstore and buy one before we go to the speech and hopefully she will sign it (and hopefully I will have time to do some background research on her and possibly read one of her books!). And also back to the class, I am super excited to conduct an interview with a person over 60! My grandparents always say that "the youth now-a-days has no interest in learning from their elders" so it always makes them happy when I ask them about their past and the "good ol' days." I know we did not cover much on the first day of class, but it was enough to spark my interest. I look forward to a fun and interesting semester.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)