Thoughts on Outline

I  definitely agree with Steph and Mary regarding the note cards. I definitely would not have done it that way myself. I would probably just highlight the main points I wanted to use from the sources, or type the main points from the sources onto a word document. That way, I would have them already typed out and ready to use in the essay. The outline was helpful and I have done outlines many times in the past. I probably would not have done it on my own for this essay, since I feel like this essay is a little bit more straightforward. My essay for another class, on the other hand, that is also due on Tuesday, is longer and much more ambiguous. An outline certainly would have been helpful. Of course, I didn't do it and just jumped right into writing the paper. As a result, its moving rather slow.

I have noticed that Buhle mentioned communists rather frequently, and I am curious to find out what role they played in politics (in the U.S.) in that era. I am not really sure what my question is though, I haven't really had time to give it much thought.

Textbook Perspectives

This week we have examined interpretation in textbooks and made a first foray into 'reading' or interpreting primary sources. Texts do not clearly state their goal or perspective but as we discovered in class the perspective or interpretation can be found in the selection of material and its arrangement in the text. What was striking to you about this exercise? What did you learn? Should textbooks come with a warning about 'hidden perspective'? Do we need to teach students how to 'read' these texts? To me this exercise is like reading or listening to the news - I don't typically question the truthfulness of the news but am aware that perspective and interpretation is often evident - in the choice and presentation of stories, the selection of material and in the emphasis


As I already mentioned in a previous post, its so much easier to pick up perspective when talking about recent history than the ancient past. Its because when we talk about things we can still relate to, we are much more likely to have perspectives than when talking about a time and culture that we know nothing about. Along the same lines,  a student who has a very limited knowledge of history is more likely to believe everything he or she hears, as opposed to someone who has a good handle on background knowledge and can focus their thinking energy to ask more analytical and interpretive questions. This week's exercise was very interesting to me because of how easy it was to pick about perspective when talking about the causes of  The Great Depression. I never really thought about it that way, although I was aware that even textbooks can be slanted. I suppose I just never thought about it as deeply as I did during this exercise. It really reinforced the power of omission when it comes to talking about history. Even the failure to emphasize something can give a totally different impression.

I think its really important to expose students to the idea of perspective in history, and exercises like we did in class are great for the high school level, especially because textbooks are usually used heavily in high school classrooms. Its a little different for the elementary school level because from my experience, history textbooks are seldom used, and in my opinion, even in cases that they are available, teachers should use them with extreme restraint. Instead, teachers should focus on giving their students a multifaceted story, where many different perspectives are taken into account, without the teacher trying to force or trick the students to develop the same opinions that she/he has. At the middle school level, where textbooks are usually used, teachers should begin to expose students to the idea of perspective, but students should not necessarily be expected to understand the subtle differences that we touched upon in class.

I also agree with Jessica's idea about bringing in more primary sources into the classrooms. Primary sources are a great way to get students to understand the idea of perspective, even at the middle school level, often because the differences can be so obvious. Its much harder to recognize the subtle differences in a textbook, since textbooks writers at least try to be objective. In regards to the controversies about how much should textbooks be used in the classroom, I agree with Mike's general statement that teachers should stay away from both extremes, although I think the degrees of usage should vary by grade level.

Thoughts on perspective

 Sorry for the late post. I will try to make up for it by making it nice and long.

During the discussions we have had in class in the past couple of weeks, I have come to understand what is meant by the notion that history is "constructed". At first it was hard for me to agree with such blunt statements as "history is the convenient blend of truth and fancy" or "history does not have to be exact" (Becker), but I do recognize that it is easy to put a spin on history without even trying. One thing I realized today while we were talking about FDR and the New Deal is that it is easy to see that history can have so many perspectives when one looks at recent history. We can still relate to the big debates about government involvement in business and the economy, and understand the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Its not as easy to pick out perspective when one looks at history of the ancient world that we understand so little about. Its much easier to argue and debate about the causes of the Great Depression than the Sumerians.
One quote that I have really come to agree with as an aspiring educator is from Part III of the Becker article,

…  "...to suppose that facts, once established in all their fullness, ‘will speak for themselves’, is an illusion”.

I believe that in general, only professional historians can derive meaning from pure facts and data. It takes a great amount of effort and time to interpret and understand historical facts. Mr. Everyman will not know what to do when presented with a bunch of facts. Thus, Mr. Everyman must be presented with already interpreted facts. Same goes for students. Although I think its important for a teacher to expose his or her students to the idea that facts can be interpreted, as well as help them learn to make their own interpretations and draw conclusions.

Another interesting quote regarding facts and interpretation is from the Oakeshott article:
“First, because we nowhere find facts in so simple a state as can warrant us to take them as the only truth. Conflicting facts arise; and we are forced to choose. History is necessarily a matter of selecting and rejecting, of weighing and balancing”.

I agree with this statement, but think that every historian should be conducting this process with a clear conscience, recognizing that other interpretations might exist, and not completely discarding facts that do not match his/her theory. 

I also like what Mary said in this week's post:

"Learning that there is only one perspective limits the ability to think hypothetically and develop the ability to come up with innovative solutions". I think this is something all of us who are planing to teach should keep in mind. From my own experience as a student, I can think of classes that I have had where the teacher constantly pushed one perspective and never presented others in an even remotely positive light. Although the teacher would probably say otherwise, I do not think that was a class that taught anyone how to think critically. It was brainwashing more than anything else.

Comments on Stearns, Zinn, and Becker.

I enjoyed these readings, largely because many of them featured some very strong opinions about history and it was easy to find a point for discussion and debate. As I already mentioned in class, I loved Stearns, simply because I felt that he was very straightforward and I found myself agreeing with almost everything he had to say. He did not really touch upon any controversial ideas or say anything revolutionary, but its a good article to read at the introduction of any history class to remind people why history is important, especially for those who might think otherwise. Becker I  definitely had a little more trouble with. I found myself agreeing with him in the first section of his article (I), but as the selection progressed, I found more and more to disagree with. I had trouble with statements like, "History does not have to be exact, it just has to be useful". To me its a little sad to think of history as constructed, especially if its someone else's construction that I have to accept even when I do not like it. In regards to Zinn, it looks like I had read the wrong Zinn article ( I read the one on reserves). Nevertheless, I get the impression of what Zinn is about. He seems to be very concerned with social justice, activism, and the notion that history has to change lives. Although I can see where he is coming from, I do not necessarily feel the same way and I do not think he is going to be one of my favorites this semester.

First Post

I always loved history, and when I chose to pursue a teaching career in elementary education, I was happy that it gave me an opportunity to pursue history as well - as a concentration.
My favorite thing a about history is its ability to explain why the world is the way it is. To me, history is a story of humanity, and who wouldn't be interested in that?
During this course, I would love to learn more about writing history essays since I feel that it would be an important benefit in my future history courses here at RIC. And for myself, I would simply like to develop my analytical mind, which of course, is of tremendous benefit in any area in life. Speaking of analysis, I forgot to mention that the ability to analyze has always been one of my favorite parts about history classes in high school and beyond. I never liked math and science, but analyzing has always been one of my strengths and something I enjoyed.