4th Post- Perspective

             It was extremely interesting to see the different perspectives of the textbooks we analyzed in class.  However, the more I thought about it, the less striking it seemed to me.  For  example, I began asking questions such as when were these textbooks written and who were the authors?  I found it interesting how Mary Beth Norton, one of the authors of the first textbook, grew up in Michigan.  The passage about the Great Depression that she wrote about was very much about over-production and under-consumption.  Is it a coincidence that in 1929, Detroit (one of the major cities in Michigan) produced over 5,337,000 vehicles?  People surely didn’t have the money after the crash to consume that amount of production.  I began thinking that perhaps it was Norton’s connection to the state of Michigan that made her point out over-production specifically for one of the causes of the Great Depression. 

            It was actually more astonishing to me that I could make sense of WHY the textbooks were different than the fact that they were actually so different.  Every author has a different perspective on the world because of the time they grew up in, where they came from etc.  I do believe that we should teach this to high school students.  One of the “goals of graduation” in my high school (which we had to memorize, might I add) was for every student to be an analytical thinker by the time they graduate.  I now realize that reading my American History textbook without knowing about different perspective certainly didn’t prove me to be analytical.  I was truly under the impression that textbooks “spit out the facts”.  I wish I had known about perspective because it would have made my high school history a whole lot more interesting!

            Lastly, I don’t think books should come with a warning because “warning” has a negative connotation that implies that perspective is something dangerous and damaging.  I think that if everyone was simply aware of this, then students would be better at not only reading textbooks, but using the textbook’s information in papers or even daily life.

3rd Post

“All new knowledge depends upon our ability to find in our present knowledge an analogy for the new phenomenon.”

This line by Oakshott is, in my opinion, an exact depiction of how we as historians interpret history.  I believe strongly in a saying that I learned in my Western Civ. class; “History is written in the present”.  That is, history is a reflection of the past from the minds of historians and is changing at every moment because of our present experiences.  While reading something historical, I am constantly finding parallels to present day and automatically interpreting the historical information based on my opinions of my own background, understanding of the world, etc.

For example, when learning about the recession in the 1920’s that led to The Great Depression, thoughts of today’s recession are constantly flashing through my mind.  Before the depression of the 1930’s, society was practically run by republican ideals for years.  It reminds me of Wisconsin’s governor, Scott Walker who took away the collective bargaining rights of many state employees.  Since I detest Scott Walker (for that reason, as well as many, many others) and that period in history reminds me of him, I will be more apt to say that such a republican society was not a good idea.  I might even go as far as to say that it was part of the cause of the Great Depression.  However, somebody with republican values would argue otherwise.  This proves that our own life experiences play a factor in the way that we present history.

I agree with Steph’s blog when she says that history cannot be completely reliant on the facts.  Even if one tried to construct a completely factual history, he/she would have to be forced to choose which facts to include and this would result in a selective history.

2nd Post

"Oh, you're going to RIC?  That's nice!  What's your major?!"
"History"
(face of disgust) "Oh, jeez."

Yep. It's been the major "downer" (for lack of a better term) of just about every conversation I've had about college.  Nope, I'm not going to school to be a nurse, a business owner, or a mechanical engineer.  I'm going for history!

"Well, good luck getting a job with that one!" (laughs)

Yes.  Well, if I was interested in finishing college, skipping graduate school, and immediately receiving a well-paid job, then I would profess my fabricated love for pharmacy and successfully (and with quite a sum of wealth, might I add) fulfill all the dullness that life has to offer to me.

History is boring.  It's not promising.  It's for people who can't escape from the past.  Or my personal favorite- "The past already happened, we can't change it, so who CARES about history???"

These ignorant (and completely mistaken) comments make me infuriated (in case you can't tell).  This is why, when I read the article by Becker, I was pleased to find I finally had an answer to this type of question.  Well at least, an answer that's not walking away and/or accusing some one of being mindless.  By reducing history to its lowest terms and defining it as, "the memory of things said and done", Becker provides everyone with the irrefutable significance of history in everyday life.

Because let's face it- history is very commonly misunderstood by the general public.  As Becker describes, the subject is viewed as a requirement for education that most students dread fulfilling.  Little do these students know, they are fulfilling this requirement every day.  Becker's example of Mr. Everyman paying his coal bill reflects upon the essentiality of human reliance on history to perform daily tasks.

Becker says, "We are apt to think of the past as dead, the future as nonexistent, the present alone as real".  But if I were to present some one with an idea- the idea that we could easily predict the future and avoid astronomical conflict without any research, but rather just using our own knowledge- I surely would arouse his/her interest.  The answer is simply this: history.  In certain circumstances, history serves as an oracle and holds a precious amount of value in doing this.

Even if I was a nursing or a pharmaceutical major, I would be recalling history at every moment- how to perform a medical procedure, how many tablets will cure this patient?  In the past, what has worked?  In the past, how have we saved lives?

Did I hear some one say history was important?

First Post

Hello everyone.  My name is Syeda but you can all call me Sye.  I'm looking forward to another semester and hope to gain some specific skills from this class.

One thing I'd like to acquire is a more direct writing style.  In the past I've been extremely analytical and have worked around my ideas until I finally present my point.  In this class, I want to learn how to present my point from the start.

I am definitely looking forward to working with peers who have the same passion for history that I do.  It might be easier to understand one another when everyone has the same interests.  Especially those who are interested in the same time period as I am...

Which brings me to my last comment- what I love about history.  Although I do enjoy learning about ancient Greek history (but perhaps that's just the philosophy major in me), I have a concentration in American History.  There are multiple things I absolutely love about my concentration.  I've taken an interest in wars (I know, Dr. Schuster, ew!) in the past and have found myself reading for pleasure about specifically the Vietnam War.  Reading about this has led me to fall in love with a certain decade in American History: The 1960's.  Once I began looking more into the political and social changes in America at that time, I decided that the 1960's in America was my favorite setting to learn about.