Notes and a Topic

This week was my first experience doing the note cards and outline, all together. I had done each one but not both for a project. The outline I had to do for college but not a very formal one. The note cards I had to do in high school or prior to that. I do not find either very useful as I find I have a natural ability to keep information straight in my head. The notes and outlines seem unnecessarily tedious and time consuming. I do not mean to sound harsh, but I have other classes, all of which require work. If this was my only class I'd be golden. However, I do agree with Brian that the review in class today was useful.

On another note, my topic of J. Edgar Hoover was rejected, and with good reason. I was not aware that we had to use mainly primary sources and I do not want to commute to Washington for that. I recently read in Buhle about the Rhode Island governor during this time period, Theodore Franklin Green, and I would really like to learn more about him and his "Little New Deal". I will need Dr. Schuster's help in narrowing this topic down of course as it is too broad and I am not sure which direction it should go in. Maybe she will have a better idea of what good sources are around and I can build off that.

Textbooks have interpretation

It had never occurred to me that textbooks have their own perspective on how events happened and what piece leading up to, during, or after the event was more significant. Students should be aware that there is a perspective but it does not matter if they have the right teacher. A good teacher should not be reliant on textbooks but should merely use them as guides. I have had teachers who use textbooks in the extreme both ways. One teacher used the entire class period everyday to have the students read the section, or sections, and then have the questions at the end answered. Then some teachers do not even use the textbook at all. Admittedly it happens much more frequently with professors in college but it still happens at the K-12 levels, even if it is more rare. In the former example students are only getting the perspective of their textbook writers while the latter are only getting the perspective of their teachers. This is fine if the teacher gives various perspectives, like any good teacher should, but not fine if the teacher is only giving their perspective of a chain of events. It should never be assumed that every perspective can be covered because there is not enough time within an academic year. However if various perspectives are given and the teacher acknowledges there are other perspectives, the student will receive a much better education than that of the student who just reads textbooks all class.

Perspective in history

Everyone knows that you cannot fully trust media outlets because every single one has its own "agenda", or a set of ideals they want to push. I had never before realized the same is true for historians. As Foner argues in his article, "All history... is contemporary history." They decide what is important to study based of events that happened recently or are currently happening around them. Not only do historians decide this but the public also. Historians want to make sure what they write and study will inform people, sell to people, and, most importantly, make people want to read it. A historian can write a beautiful piece on how the paint dried on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. While that may be interesting to a few people, I would read it, most people do not want to waste time reading about how paint dried. If a historian can not get people to read the piece it will neither inform nor sell. If people can relate historical events to what is happening around them, the piece has a much higher chance of being successful because the piece becomes attractive to Mr. and Mrs. Every-person. 

Objectivity in history

In his interview, Howard Zinn said, "Objectivity is neither possible nor desirable." The other authors would certainly agree. History has no value if it is looked at solely from one perspective. For example, the institution of slavery looks like a great idea if looked at from the plantation owners view. People need to understand slavery was not humane hence why it is no longer practiced in civilized culture. Becker wants people to learn about the past so they are prepared for the future. If people do not learn about the Constitution of the United States, the American Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement, they can come off as, or worse become, ignorant, discriminatory, and racist. As Stearns points out different factions want students to learn different pieces of history. If students are taught enough history throughout their lives and through various perspectives, every one of the authors will be appeased and these students may be made better people and citizens.

Why history is cool!

Everyone has heard the rumors of History 200, even if they wouldn't admit it on the first day. My friend told me I was going to die because of all the work and how challenging the class is. That same friend got a B at the end of his class so it is definitely not the end of the world and whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger. I look forward to the challenge this class brings and hope to improve anything that I possibly can. Not that I am dissatisfied with anything right now but it never hurts to make improvements. I enjoy my military history but my true passion in history is drama. For example I immensely enjoyed learning FDR was having an affair before AND after he was diagnosed with polio. My plan for the research paper was to focus on presidential affairs but this was before I realized there was a focus the research paper had to revolve around. Why do I love history though? Besides parallels that we discussed in class, it is true that "history repeats itself". For example, if you do not think that it is fascinating that Napoleons downfall was invading Russia and then a little more than a century later Hitlers downfall was the EXACT SAME THING, History 200, and probably history in general, isn't for you.