In History: A Very Short Introduction, author John Arnold states, “A historian should be like a lawyer: balancing conflicting accounts trying to establish the exact sequence of events, treating ‘witnesses’(documents) with dispassionate and
When thinking about history in the past, I have always believed that it was straightforward. I knew that if I wanted to know something, I had to find the sources that contained the information. I had never thought about how that information came to be or why the author chose to include the information that he did. Reading “The Strange Death of Silas Deane,” helped me to see that everything is not as straightforward as it seems, and in order for you to completely have a full picture of something, you need to know all the information that is surrounding it.
Novick states that while the typical understanding of a myth is something that is considered untrue or factual. He, on the other hand, views the idea of a myth as being a tool that can back historical objectivity as it works to rid historians and history of bias views of an event (Haskell, 3-4). Haskell states that his problem with Novick’s view of the definition of myth and objectivity. While Novick feels that objectivity shows a flaw, as a historian way of viewing and writing history from an opinionated stance, Haskell states that his view on the way Novick views the “myth of objectivity” is nothing more than a way for historians to “professionalize their discipline, enhance their dignity, and maximize their incomes” (Haskell,
The evidence mentioned is this article is subjective and derived from a monologue which makes it not credible. In addition, sources are not mentioned in supporting
In the journal article “ Andrew Jackson versus the Historians”, author Charles G. Sellers explained the various interpretations of Jackson, from the viewpoint of Whig historians and Progressive Historians. These interpretations were based on the policies of Jackson. The Whig historians viewed the former president in a negative way. They considered him arrogant, ignorant, and not fit for being president. Sellers pointed out that it was not just because of “Jackson’s personality…nor was it the general policies he pursued as president”
Primary sources are eminent for historians to discover events that occurred in the past, without such sources of information, there would be no knowledge of an incident. Some events can have many sources describing exactly what occurred, which is celebrated by historians as this gives a fuller picture of the past. However, some events have only one written surviving source- one such event is the Stono Rebellion. Therefore, historians are reliant on this source for all the information of the revolt, but it has still created controversy due to numerous reasons, such as the identity of the author, and the exact date. Both controversies will be explored later in this commentary.
“In that inevitable taking of sides which comes from selection and emphasis in history, I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees…” (Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, pg. 10). Society as a whole expects historians to be impartial, to report the events of the past as they happened, without incorporating their own thoughts into these events. We choose to believe that they are politically neutral, that they have no bias, and that they report history fairly and that everything occurred the way they say. However, as historian Howard Zinn points out in A People’s History, most historians have succumbed to the disturbing trend of glossing over and sugarcoating some of history’s most horrific events, excusing them as necessary for “progress,” and then moving on.
History does not always convey the absolute truth. It offers only one side of the story. The strong and powerful voices always drown out the sounds of the weak and beaten. The winner’s word will always be taken over the loser’s. The content that lies within the textbooks was not written by the defeated.
In this section, you want to analyze the evidence the author uses in the text. What kind of evidence does the author use? Is some evidence more convincing to you than other kinds? Which ones? Which examples from the text represent strong evidence to support the author's claims?
History is a novel idea that has been a continuous idea throughout our time in class. We have gone over what history means to us, the students; as well as the authors and filmmakers we have studied. For me, before this class, History merely meant what we
A historian is an expert in or student of history. Historian need to use perspective, interpretation, secondary and primary sources and articles. For my investigation I used secondary sources, perspective and interpretation. The sources I encountered were bias because they were taken from a Americans point of view. It would have been drastically different if it was from a communist or soviet perspective.
Oh my gosh Diary, � You will not believe what has happened. Yes… you guessed it. I have escaped. Turns out Oakenshield was also locked by Elevenking as a prisoner and the creepy shadow was actually the hobbit.
The two critical theories studied this week, new historicism and cultural criticism, share many of the same concepts. Both theories are under the belief that history and culture are complex and that there is no way for us to fully understand these subjects because we are influenced by our subjective beliefs. Also, both theories believe that people are restricted by the limits society sets, and that people and these limits cause friction and struggle. Furthermore, both of these theories share from some of the same influences such as from the French philosopher Michel Foucault. New historicist believe that the writing of history is merely an interpretation, not an absolute fact, other than the big facts we know such as who was president at the time or who won a certain battle.
These are not the only reasons that historiography is important when forming a stance on a specific topic. Historiographical research helps develop a fuller understanding on a topic and creates a more educated interpretation. Similarly, when historiography is included in a paper, it gives that paper more credibility and the writer more perceived authority on the topic by displaying this thorough understanding of the topic. Furthermore, by evaluating the past research that has been done on a topic, it helps the writer avoid potentially plagiarizing a source that they might not have known about otherwise and give the writer a chance to formally recognize the scholarship and authors that have previously written on a
Trouillot helps us grasp the idea that it is important to know that the most honest historians will try to tell the story as accurately as possible from the data. At the same time, many parts of the past get “silenced”, being forgotten about, pushed aside or passed over. Trouillot gives beneficial information that can be applied to our own studies about how this selective “silencing”
