Knowing History And Knowing Who We Are Speech PdfBy Astrid G. In and pdf 26.05.2021 at 18:04 3 min read
File Name: knowing history and knowing who we are speech .zip
- I’m a Historian. I See Reason to Fear—And to Hope.
- Writing a Good History Paper
- Why It’s Important That We Study History
- All people are living histories – which is why History matters
We construct it. We puzzle pieces into meanings. Aided by our instincts and experiences, as well as by our research, we make sense of other times, other nations, other peoples.
History is often reduced to a handful of memorable moments and events. Martin Luther King, Jr. But these are only a few of the significant and important events to know and remember. But just as Black history is more than a month, so too are the numerous events and figures that are often overlooked during it. Most people think of Rosa Parks as the first person to refuse to give up their seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama.
I’m a Historian. I See Reason to Fear—And to Hope.
Drawn from a survey of the History Department You engage in cheap, anachronistic moralizing. You are sloppy with the chronology. You quote excessively or improperly. You are vague or have empty, unsupported generalizations. You write too much in the passive voice. You use inappropriate sources. You use evidence uncritically. You are wordy.
You have no clear thesis and little analysis. Avoid pretentious, vapid beginnings. Get to the point. For example, you might go on to argue that greater British sensitivity to Indian customs was hypocritical. Whether you are writing an exam essay or a senior thesis, you need to have a thesis. A good thesis answers an important research question about how or why something happened.
Develop your thesis logically from paragraph to paragraph. Your reader should always know where your argument has come from, where it is now, and where it is going. Students are often puzzled when their professors mark them down for summarizing or merely narrating rather than analyzing. What does it mean to analyze? In the narrow sense, to analyze means to break down into parts and to study the interrelationships of those parts.
If you analyze water, you break it down into hydrogen and oxygen. In a broader sense, historical analysis explains the origins and significance of events.
Historical analysis digs beneath the surface to see relationships or distinctions that are not immediately obvious. Historical analysis is critical; it evaluates sources, assigns significance to causes, and weighs competing explanations. Many students think that they have to give a long summary to show the professor that they know the facts before they get to their analysis.
Try instead to begin your analysis as soon as possible, sometimes without any summary at all. You can't do an analysis unless you know the facts, but you can summarize the facts without being able to do an analysis. Like good detectives, historians are critical of their sources and cross-check them for reliability. Likewise, you wouldn't think much of a historian who relied solely on the French to explain the origins of World War I.
Only a professional liar would deny this Neither the people, the government, nor the Kaiser wanted war As always, the best approach is to ask: Who wrote the source? Under what circumstances?
For whom? The first statement comes from a book by the French politician Georges Clemenceau, which he wrote in at the very end of his life. He was obviously not a disinterested observer.
The second statement comes from a manifesto published by ninety-three prominent German intellectuals in the fall of They were defending Germany against charges of aggression and brutality.
They too were obviously not disinterested observers. Now, rarely do you encounter such extreme bias and passionate disagreement, but the principle of criticizing and cross-checking sources always applies.
In general, the more sources you can use, and the more varied they are, the more likely you are to make a sound historical judgment, especially when passions and self-interests are engaged. Competent historians may offer different interpretations of the same evidence or choose to stress different evidence. You can, however, learn to discriminate among conflicting interpretations, not all of which are created equal. See also: Analyzing a Historical Document. Vague statements and empty generalizations suggest that you haven't put in the time to learn the material.
The Revolution is important because it shows that people need freedom. Landless peasants? Urban journeymen? Wealthy lawyers? Which government? Who exactly needed freedom, and what did they mean by freedom? Be careful when you use grand abstractions like people, society, freedom, and government, especially when you further distance yourself from the concrete by using these words as the apparent antecedents for the pronouns they and it.
Always pay attention to cause and effect. Abstractions do not cause or need anything; particular people or particular groups of people cause or need things. Anchor your thesis in a clear chronological framework and don't jump around confusingly. Take care to avoid both anachronisms and vagueness about dates. The scandal did not become public until after the election. Which revolution? When in the twentieth century?
Remember that chronology is the backbone of history. What would you think of a biographer who wrote that you graduated from Hamilton in the s? Your professor may allow parenthetical citations in a short paper with one or two sources, but you should use footnotes for any research paper in history. Parenthetical citations are unaesthetic; they scar the text and break the flow of reading. Worse still, they are simply inadequate to capture the richness of historical sources.
Historians take justifiable pride in the immense variety of their sources. Parenthetical citations such as Jones may be fine for most of the social sciences and humanities, where the source base is usually limited to recent books and articles in English.
Historians, however, need the flexibility of the full footnote. I, Nr. The abbreviations are already in this footnote; its information cannot be further reduced. For footnotes and bibliography, historians usually use Chicago style. The Chicago Manual of Style. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Use as many primary sources as possible in your paper.
A primary source is one produced by a participant in or witness of the events you are writing about. A primary source allows the historian to see the past through the eyes of direct participants. Some common primary sources are letters, diaries, memoirs, speeches, church records, newspaper articles, and government documents of all kinds. Not all primary sources are written.
Buildings, monuments, clothes, home furnishings, photographs, religious relics, musical recordings, or oral reminiscences can all be primary sources if you use them as historical clues. The interests of historians are so broad that virtually anything can be a primary source.
A secondary source is one written by a later historian who had no part in what he or she is writing about. In the rare cases when the historian was a participant in the events, then the work—or at least part of it—is a primary source. Historians read secondary sources to learn about how scholars have interpreted the past. Just as you must be critical of primary sources, so too you must be critical of secondary sources. You must be especially careful to distinguish between scholarly and non-scholarly secondary sources.
Unlike, say, nuclear physics, history attracts many amateurs. Books and articles about war, great individuals, and everyday material life dominate popular history. Some professional historians disparage popular history and may even discourage their colleagues from trying their hand at it. You need not share their snobbishness; some popular history is excellent. But—and this is a big but—as a rule, you should avoid popular works in your research, because they are usually not scholarly.
Popular history seeks to inform and entertain a large general audience. In popular history, dramatic storytelling often prevails over analysis, style over substance, simplicity over complexity, and grand generalization over careful qualification.
Popular history is usually based largely or exclusively on secondary sources. Strictly speaking, most popular histories might better be called tertiary, not secondary, sources. Scholarly history, in contrast, seeks to discover new knowledge or to reinterpret existing knowledge. Good scholars wish to write clearly and simply, and they may spin a compelling yarn, but they do not shun depth, analysis, complexity, or qualification.
Scholarly history draws on as many primary sources as practical. Now, your goal as a student is to come as close as possible to the scholarly ideal, so you need to develop a nose for distinguishing the scholarly from the non-scholarly. Who is the author? Most scholarly works are written by professional historians usually professors who have advanced training in the area they are writing about.
Writing a Good History Paper
No one has played a greater role in helping all Americans know the black past than Carter G. Du Bois by a few years. To Woodson, the black experience was too important simply to be left to a small group of academics. Woodson believed that his role was to use black history and culture as a weapon in the struggle for racial uplift. Woodson was a strange and driven man whose only passion was history, and he expected everyone to share his passion. This impatience led Woodson to create Negro History Week in , to ensure that school children be exposed to black history.
Drawn from a survey of the History Department You engage in cheap, anachronistic moralizing. You are sloppy with the chronology. You quote excessively or improperly. You are vague or have empty, unsupported generalizations.
A silly question, right? Martin Luther King Jr. Brown v. Like I said, I had no idea or had I wished it away? And we cannot allow this to continue.
Truman once remarked that the history we don't know is the only new thing in the world. Picking up on a related theme, the late Daniel Boorstin, an eminent.
Why It’s Important That We Study History
Historians are often asked: what is the use or relevance of studying History the capital letter signalling the academic field of study? Why on earth does it matter what happened long ago? The answer is that History is inescapable. It studies the past and the legacies of the past in the present. Far from being a 'dead' subject, it connects things through time and encourages its students to take a long view of such connections.
People live in the present. They plan for and worry about the future. History, however, is the study of the past. Given all the demands that press in from living in the present and anticipating what is yet to come, why bother with what has been? Given all the desirable and available branches of knowledge, why insist—as most American educational programs do—on a good bit of history?
A fast-changing world leaves little time for nostalgia and irrelevant details—or, worse, strategies for winning the last war.
All people are living histories – which is why History matters
Learning about history is an antidote to the hubris of the present, the idea that everything in our lives is the ultimate. Former President Harry S. Picking up on a related theme, the late Daniel Boorstin, an eminent historian, Librarian of Congress, and griend of mine, wrote that planning for the future without a sense of the past is similar to planting cut flowers and hoping for the best. Today, the new generation of young Americans are like a field of cut flowers, by-and-large historically illiterate. This does not bode well for our future.
Бринкерхофф застонал, сожалея, что попросил ее проверить отчет шифровалки. Он опустил глаза и посмотрел на ее протянутую руку. - Речь идет о засекреченной информации, хранящейся в личном помещении директора. Ты только представь себе, что будет, если об этом станет известно. - Директор в Южной Америке.
Я решила ее издать. - Издать? - Он с сомнением покачал головой. - Издать. - Некоторые идеи о протоколах вариативных фильтров и квадратичных остатках. - Стопроцентный бестселлер. Она засмеялась. - Сам удивишься.
Knowing History in Schools: Powerful knowledge and the powers of knowledge wp-content/uploads//09/englishdistrictlifeline.org Gove, M. () 'We will reverse Labour's devaluation of exams' (Speech).
Он часто представлял, как занимается с ней сексом: прижимает ее к овальной поверхности ТРАНСТЕКСТА и берет прямо там, на теплом кафеле черного пола. Но Сьюзан не желала иметь с ним никакого дела. И, что, на взгляд Хейла, было еще хуже, влюбилась в университетского профессора, который к тому же зарабатывал сущие гроши.