“Focus on the journey, not the destination. Joy is found not in finishing an activity but in doing it.”

“The historical dimension in every object, person, and occurrence provokes our questions and provides an important part of our understanding”

If I can say that I learned anything this semester I would say that I learned that historiography goes beyond the Civil War. But the Civil War is still a very relatable example for most things!! Also, having to accept that the sole female in the class makes mistakes in regard to assuming the gender of authors. That slip up will probably live with me for the rest of my life.

For most of the semester I have live in a cloud of self-confidence when it came to writing this thesis paper. I have felt that from my combined previous experience and from what I have learned this semester that I could pull out a senior thesis. I did not give any hesitation to this fact. But, honestly after reading the Yale Guide I became nervous when it comes to the paper. This guide should have had the reverse effect. While it spells out everything you should do it gives great advice on how to efficiently do your thesis and make it a wonderful rewarding experience. My major worry when looking at my topic and next year is my thesis. I worry that I have a good subject and a really great resource of primary sources but that I will not be able to translate the information into a significant argument about or against the War Commission. I would like to talk about veteran’s choices versus the War Commission choices. But I am worried that this is not going to be enough of an argument. Before I had a bunch of good arguments but not one strong one. Hopefully through significant research into the subject I can develop a strong central argument.

“History making and history made are scientifically inseparable and separately unmeaning.”

This semester I have completely reformed my idea of how you develop a competent thesis. I feel that everything I have done before now was not properly done. From learning from nineteenth century scholars such as Carl Becker and Lord Acton; Even more importantly Wilhelm Von Humboldt and Leopold Von Ranke. The professionalization of the academic historical field created a guild and a set of steps to get into that field. This process of professionalization has set up the idea that every conclusion is contingent on evidentiary practice. Also learning about the important shift from great man history to history done from below. The impact of historical Marxism on this. Learning that structures are not the patterned social practices that make up social systems, but the principles that pattern these practices. A historian cannot use ethnocentrism when they are deconstructing a society. Just as language is not transparent, neither is society. Everything must be taken in it’s own context. Learning the methods of how to read primary sources was incredibly important also. Before this semester I always though you just read primary sources without any kind of method. But using your primary sources as proper evidence to a well backed up argument will make my paper stronger. I think our argument about context was very helpful to me. The time period, the structures, the author’s position, and the intended audience are all important.

Another important aspect is learning the object of the research and the subject of the argument. Discovering the difference between these two helped me and will help me to make a paper that has a reason. A paper that is not just information but a well structured argument.

 TIll next week, 

matteavs

My Revisionist Point of View

The articles this week are teaching us about archiving and the very important positives and negatives that can come from trying to save our precious historical resources. The first article by Louis Bickford, discussed the preservation of documents relating to human rights injustices in the Southern Cone of Latin America. These documents specifically ones produced by HRNGOs stand in grave danger of being reduced to dust because of improper treatment of these documents. One argument for why this has occurred is because there has not been enough time to pass for the country to really realize the importance of discussing nationally what atrocities have occurred in their country. They give a prime example that it took almost a hundred years before the United States could really discuss its activity in the transatlantic slave trade. One of the biggest dangers that makes the documentation that they do have so important is that many documents were destroyed to try to cover up what has occurred. This is inherent in nations wanting to manipulate their past’s history. Stemming from some nation’s do not want their archives of human rights problems to become available because they know people will research it and find out about it. Also the historiography on that subject matter will expand internationally. Within this there are two camps that have developed on who stress remembering the other who advocate forgetting. These arguments are not new in the study of history. These arguments about the importance of remembering history have come up in a number of dialogues. One part of this facing the development of these archives is budgets. If these government believe that they should leave their pasts behind, they are not going to fund projects that support the progression of the remembrance of their past. There have been strides made in these countries to try to gather these materials but have fallen short in preservation. One discussion that has come up a number of times this semester is privatization. Just because it needs to be kept private does not mean it should not be preserved. It still could tell us something in the future. Another discussion is releasing these documents to libraries and archives in other countries. Some are very unwilling to do this and will be a time limit on when they can have them available.

I have always been very against using online archives as a major resource for primary research. But, after looking at these websites I am convinced that it is a positive move not just for preservation but also for the berth of information that we can get now with archives being on a website. On the National Security Archive the Chiquita papers intrigued me. I was so impressed how looking at the copy on the website was pretty close to having that document in your hand. What made them even more useful than even being at the archive was that it gave a lot of background information on the individual archives. This made them even more powerful. I have seen on other websites how works that have to be transcribed are already done for you such as with the Lincoln Papers at the Library Congress where 20,000 of Lincoln’s papers were transcribed and digitized.

The next article “Scan this Book!” reveals the impact of digitizing books. This was a startling article because I had not thought about how far this could go in a number of years. Kevin Kelly compares the potential wealth that will be in a digital archive to the library at Alexandria. One of the impacts that he says is that no book will be an island. No book is isolated in itself. Especially with a search engine, before a person had to do the legwork to the see the pertinence of a book. Now they can have a search that picks what is pertinent for them. This will also help people to pull sections from different books. Books will no longer be complete entities in themselves. They will be mixed with other books to create interwebs. A couple positive changes that Kelly makes is that one it will increase readership especially on items with very few readership at the moment. The feeling of completeness and authority over having it all in one place will increase. For me I see the importance of works being on the computer but I am partial to pen and paper.


Till next week, 
matteavs
 

Jorge de Alvarado

Jorge de Alvarado’s account

Pg. 55-59

His account presents a differing point of view than his cousin Gonzalo de Alvarado. He discusses his campaign of 1527 to 1529 in which led to the Spanish colony in Guatemala. This letter was to the King, written on February 26, 1534. This letter is asking for the King of Spain to make Jorge de Alvarado the governor of the provinces of Guatemala that he states he conquered and pacified. Alvarado uses many routes to show how he deserves this appointment especially over his brother. He first tries to correct the wrongdoing that has occurred in the credit of the conquering of Guatemala. He does this by explaining how he was actually the one to conquer and pacify the land. He then explains how he did this with much personal expense to himself. He also is very careful to show that this conquering was not a simple task, but came at much personal hardship. He explains how they did not just walk away easily but had to be very persistent with the natives. He uses rhetoric that makes sure to sound that he is the only one that was ever able to pacify Guatemala. That no one had been able to do it before, and he went in heroically and saved the day. It is also very evident that Jorge is writing persuasively to the king. He uses vocabulary that evokes his honoring and humbleness to the king. He says “Your Holy Majesty” and “kisses your royal feet.” The reader can feel his desperation to receive what he deserves is his.

The letter comes at a very important time in both the lives of Pedro and Jorge de Alvarado. Pedro would come back from his expedition from Peru in a year. Jorge knew that he had a very small window to explain to the king why Pedro should not receive the governorship at his return. He wanted to explain everything he had been able to do in Pedro’s absence. But, he also knew that the state of Guatemala on his arrival in 1527 would not be known to anyone but himself. This was the weakness of his letter is that to a King half a world away, it could not be explained the depth of the change that Jorge had on Guatemala.

This letter is very important for the historical interpretation of the conquering of Guatemala. Before 2004 it was an ingrained fact that Pedro de Alvarado was the conqueror and settler of Guatemala. But, through the publication of the Jorge’s letter in 2004 it helped to explain his side of the story. This version is also very important because this is the first time it is being published in English.

Because of the context this source is very important for not just verifying to the King who is responsible for conquering Guatemala, but also to history. Jorge had insight and was able to see that his brother once returned would receive credit for what he had done. He wrote this letter to first receive politically what he felt he deserved but also historically. Unfortunately, because of Pedro’s connections he was able to leave history with a more impactful legacy. This source is incredibly important to unearthing what the true history of the conquering of Guatemala was.

 Till next week, 

matteavs

Just a thought....

For my blog this week I am going to stray away from the norm of describing what we have discussed in class and making commentary on it. Instead I would like to talk about what I took from the reading last week. I will first give a little insight into my thoughts on the Remains vs. sources debate but I would like to go into other items that I took from “Reading Primary Sources.” Firstly, I think it would be very hard if in research you were stuck strictly with sources. If that were your area of study such as intellectual history that we discussed in class it would be very efficient. But, in my mind it could cloud the factual history that we are trying to construct. But, on the other hand just because a primary document is found that was never intended to be read does not mean it is not void of biases. But, maybe even further what is important is that whether it is remains or a source when reading the primary source we can take away what the perspective was at that time pertaining what we are researching.

“For him, disclosing the historical ideas behind past events enabled one to develop a sense of the general structure of history.”

One interesting part in part 1 that contrasted with Droysen’s theories on remains and sources was Ranke’s theories on historical criticism. He believed that the true facts of history could only come by a historian using intensive assessment of the historical sources. Through this historians can detect historical changes and the subjective becomes the objective. What became most important about this section was neither Ranke or Droysen but the fact that by accepting the usefulness of constructing past events through primary documents it meant a huge change in historiography.

When reading the sections that concerned different types of primary documents different ways that certain kinds of documents could become useful occurred to me. During the letter section of the book one of the most interesting parts was how letters can reveal characteristics about people that without the document would become unknown. One example of this demographic is the poor and powerless. As more people became literate more people wrote letters that expressed their views on their situations. These letters could reveal much to a person researching. I think another very important part of the letter section that had never occurred to me was letters of citizenship. One letter that has been used from Ken Burns to Douglass Southall Freeman is the story of a girl who sent a letter to Abraham Lincoln telling him to grow a beard so that he could win the election. This is a very famous letter that shows the love of Lincoln that this little girl inhibits.

In the memoranda section there was a concept that I would like to dwell on that I am wondering if could be used in other areas of primary document and that is the concept of a ‘think piece.’ This idea is to say that they are studying a political decision and find a memo that would have been the turning point of that decision. Now this would be very hard to find but it is out there. This is the point of studying memoranda is to find out the complexities of the backgrounds of the political decisions that were made. Maybe the decision is not what it seems on the surface. There could be clues about the aggression of the decision. I am wondering if this could be found in letters and diaries. Maybe there is a think piece in a diary that explains why a person made the decision they did. Just an insight.

Till next week,

matteavs

Methodology 2 Week 9

Merriam Webster defines a method as “a procedure or process for attaining an object.” Before this week it was very hard to see how we take use the steps involved in methodology and form them into a coherent argument; even further into a finished product of a paper. This week the concepts of methodology were put into a coherent set of steps. Through this process the object of creating a paper can be accomplished. Any of the pieces seperatly do not result in a solid paper, but all together they do.

In the two articles that I read for this week they were both done through a local approach. The first article by Sundiata Cha-Jua was about the northern town of Decatur, Illinois from 1894 to 1898. She is making an argument about the situation of lynching and racial mob violence throughout the north by concentrating on this small town. By discussing the events in the town of Decatur the author makes a statement about the racial problems in small towns while at the same time discussing it on a national level. This article sets itself apart from the other because it uses the local aspect to go along with what is going on nationally. She is also able through her article to understand why some lynching’s were prevented by a mob of African-Americans and some were not. The first lynching she discusses of Samuel J. Bush was not prevented because he was not a local. He had just been passing through. Also this was a town that had not seen much racial violence if any so the fact that a man was being lynched was very strange. The second potential lynching of James Jackson was stopped by a mob that made sure he was protected. Another characteristic part of the article was the author’s use of secondary source concepts that help to define the terms of what was going on in this small town. One example of this is Craig Calhoun’s concept of community, density, and multiplicity.

The second article was much different because it did not mention anything at a global level at all. But, by talking in depth on a local level the author is also making a statement about the global world also. In class we learned that there can be terms other than global and local. There is the individual speaking generally about a group. This article uses this a lot because it goes in depth about certain individuals to speak generally about a whole group. This article by Sharon Farmer is speaking about the population of immigrants to the town of St Dennis and their use of the tomb of Louis IX who was soon-to-be canonized. The source is very significant because it is taken from one set of stories from the Miracle of Saint Louis. The author speaks specifically about the women and their individual agency. She makes a line between women who are married and women who are single. Because it has been thought that the women who are married had more advantages. But, they actually did not. If they were sick they were forced to beg on the streets, while still caring for their famalies. But, what is significant is the towns the sense of community that was created. Neighbors would go to help women who they had heard were healed. Also, if a single woman was in need there were women who could help her. The other part of the article that is significant is her use of microhistory. This was a term that I was not familiar with. Through her use of this one source she is able to make an assessment of women’s lives who are on the bottom of society. Further making an argument for all immigrant women in Paris and throughout the country.

Till next week,

matteavs

Methodology Week 8

“Historical methodology, as I see it, is a product of common sense applied to circumstances.”

This week I took a step back and decided to investigate where I get my information from. I decided to really watch if I get information from the Internet. It turns out I get a lot more from the Internet than I even thought. It may not seem like receiving information but the H-Net emails I receive information from to the Public History news I look up are all receiving information. I also tend to look at the news in a one sided way. So I have decided to try and make myself more informed on an unbiased way. But, as we have learned in this class this is harder than it seems.

Methodology is defined as a set or system of methods, principles, and rules for regulating a given discipline, as in the arts or sciences. Methodology is one of the hardest terms that we have to define. Historical methodology is the guidelines by which historians use primary resources and research to form their papers. In class we talked about what makes up this complicated term. The best way to understand why and how historians form this was through the example in class of what makes historians. How it is a training process. One of the most important parts of this was the language and how when reading a primary document it should be not be transparent. It should not be something that is looked over. The language that is used can give an insight to the reader about the time and the way that they viewed what was going on. In class we talked about how hermeneutics played into this. When using hermeneutics the reader is able to define the intent of the document to its most basic intent. The reader is able to see how the document would have been able to be read at the time. This is very important when doing research and basing an argument on this. Because if you do research and base the subject of your argument on documents. Then if you do not understand the point of the document than your argument will be lost. You may totally miss what the writer of the document was trying to say.

 I feel this is when ethnohistory becomes so important. Even when using oral histories, which are so important to this method of history, you have to put yourself into that situation. Saying that language is not transparent is the same thing as saying that culture is not transparent. If you look over a culture and just compare it to whatever is familiar to you, than you will lose the complete reason for the ethnohistory. That is why it was so hard for them to define because until the late 1980s early 1990s this ethnocentrism could not be shaken off. That is why personal views play so much into history. True ethnohistory could not be done until the shackles of the past ignorance had been shaken.

In the article written by Valentina Tikoff, she had to put herself in the time and read the situation differently than it had before. The situation at the orphanages had only been read through the court documents. But now she was reading the registers for orphanages. By doing this she had to learn the language and the vocabulary of what would be in there. She also had to explain this in her writing so that her argument would be even stronger. She had to explain the difference between a Foundling and an orphan. She also had to be able to explain the different kind of orphans that were there. To explain the people that was paying to go there. By using methodology she was able to do this and her argument that orphanages were not just being used in the literal sense. 

"History does not exist in a vacuum"

“History does not exist in a vacuum.”

These insightful words were spoken to me just this past weekend. I felt that they applied to our discussion from class very well. I am going to take a personal moment for a second at the risk of annoying the reader and the general audience of our small class. This past weekend I went to a Civil War Conference. During one of the lectures he was speaking about JEB Stuart, a personal favorite of mine, he was speaking about how so much of what we know of him is skewed because of what was written after the war. To elaborate his point he said, “history is not what is told by the people who lived it, but what we write it to be.” For me this was a light bulb moment for everything we have discussed in class.

Now to actually discuss the reading from last week. The basis that the three authors begin their book with is the replacement of a scientific outlook of history from a religious. They emphasize how before the eighteenth century religion dominated the shaping of history. Through historians using a scientific outlook and shedding this closer minded idea of history they were able to shed the first layer of objectivity.

Through the gaining of strength of these scientists they became heroes. The last part of this is the rise of nationalism. It cannot be exactly described the change from kingdoms to nations. How this had an effect on how people not just saw their nations but also their individual selves. All of these innovations were considered in the author’s banner of Historical Absolutism. This term although very tricky really does sum up this way of history that existed.

The way America shaped this history is even deeper. “At the center, then, of American history was an under socialized, individualistic, concept of human nature set in an over determined story of progress (125).” America’s deepest struggles were only understood on the surface level. This reminded me of a concept that was developed relatively recently by the Southern Historical Scholar Edward Ayers, concerning the Civil War. To counteract the idea that individual people do not play a role in struggles he came up with the idea of Deep Contingency. Deep contingency is that large and individual people’s arguments play a larger role in the eventual conflict; plural and singular events play in and effect everyday people’s lives.

This book by Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob were very effective in placing the study of history in a larger context. It connected many of the dots previously not connected. Our history will always be colored by where and when we are. But, the goal is not to give up our of frustration but to keep searching for the truth.

Till next week,

matteavs

If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?

“One can suggest that the accumulation of small investments could have been an important element in the financing of the district's main commercial enterprise.”

This week’s readings were all about finding the object and subject of a particular argument. It was also about deciphering the structure that is used in a particular paper. The object of the research is the question that the researcher is trying to answer. The subject of the argument is how the researcher answers the question. The structure is how the researcher frames the narrative to explain their argument. The evidence that they use is how they support the argument that they are trying to explain.

In this week’s readings there were two examples these structures. The first was Kimberly Gauderman’s article on women in textiles in seventeenth century Quito. Gauderman uses a very strict structure that is framed much like a funnel. This structure also helps her to bring together her argument that women’s economic lives were not actually set apart by their gender but by their ability to use economic prosperity and work. But, what gave even more support to Guaderman’s argument was at what cost these women gained their economic stability. Her evidence through court cases and notarial records. These revealed while the elite women who actually owned may not have been involved in the day to day lives of their obraje, there were maestros of lower social status that were involved. Fueled by the demand for their textiles they pushed the indigenous people in their care very hard. An important part of this that is revealed is female-to-female relations. Women were not any easier on their female employees because they were women. In many ways they were harder, accusing them when they became pregnant. Another gender relation that is revealed is that women could hold their own in court as well as men. Gauderman’s article divulges that women gained equality but at the expense of other women’s lives.

In another article written about the working class in Victorian England, it states that E.P. Thompson stated, “everything, from their schools to their shops, their chapels to their amusements, was turned into a battle-ground of class.” E.P. Thompson’s object was what the determining factor behind the English crowd’s riots were. He states how they are not just an outburst determined by nothing. They were hungry because of bread prices and realized their voice in the larger political spectrum. He talks about how in thinking about economy not through capitalism but through a moral economy. Relies more on the cultural and justified reasoning behind economy then a laissez-faire type economy. His ideas are much supported because there were starving populations that did not rise up such as the Irish during the potato blight.

Till next week,

matteavs

Is the foreign so foreign?

“Structures then are “virtual” and are put into practice in the production and reproduction of social life.”

The Leslie Reagan book in an essence describes the idea of history being a foreign country. The vocabulary and their view on life were completely different. But, through the interpretation that Raegan gives, she is able to give understanding and significance to a time that is foreign to the modern reader. She is able to point out what is significant in that time and then come up with a thesis that is relevant in a modern perspective. She is able to take a study that is centered when abortion was a crime and then make conclusions to when it became legal. She is able to give a perspective on that change that is well thought out and shows the positive and negative changes that occurred because of the legalization. This is the responsibility of the historian to take the foreign country and interpret. To give their interpretation of the events in the most unbiased way possible. Inevitably it will come out, and that is what makes historiography interesting. It is what historians do with the research they have in presenting it in their final product.

In Sewall’s discussion of structure one of the first points he talks about is how structure can be limiting in thinking about the past. One of the best quotes he talks about this is, “A social Science trapped in an unexamined metaphor of structure tends to reduce actors to cleverly programmed automatons.” This is a huge boundary to get over as a historian. To give people of the past real human emotions. They were in some ways very much like modern humans. They had thoughts and feelings. These emotions effect their decisions, which in turn would have affected the process of events following these decisions.

Anthony Gidden’s idea of structure was the most useful to determining the importance of structure. Especially in the form of resources. Gidden’s best quote was when he stated; “resources are anything that can serve as a source of power in social interactions.” Another quote that helped to not just explain Gidden’s own ideas about structure but Sewell’s was “Structures are not the patterned social practices that make up social systems, but the principles that pattern these practices.” The metaphor of the working class in England could work in this situation. For the point of structure it is not the actual social structure of that society it was the decisions and then the eventual revolution that put them in that situation. Gidden puts it very simply as the process that is the structure. This fits into agency because agency then is the situation that the structure has put them in.

Till next week,

matteavs

Historiography 2

Historiography 2-Blog 2

Mark Bevir stated, “We can say that the working out of objectivity is itself a profoundly historical process.”

This is very true given the readings and what has been stated in class. From the in class time from last week there seemed to come about two ways of looking at history. One through Historical Materialism the other through Historical Culture. From looking at this it would seem that the most egocentric way of looking at history is through Historical Materialism. Through culturism the historian interprets the culture within its own world. It does not try to compare and contrast itself to another culture. In materialism, there is always going to be a comparison against the most technologically advanced country. But, what is that technology is negative. This is what makes both sides objective. Because a historian cannot put himself or herself into the past it is physically impossible. Also the historian cannot investigate a country, which had a lower living standard than the richest country in the world at the time.

One of the ways that I appreciated Bevir’s comments was through his idea that, “Of course, as interpretations reveal the particular character of a fact, they often partially define the way we regard the fact.” This is very true in that what the historian states in his work will shape the reader’s perception of that event until he or she reads another work about that subject and it may change.

I am reminded through this of how this could work in a primary source work where the historian is the self telling the story. After the Battle of Gettysburg, there were many interpretations of who shot the first shot there. But, the one that was written was from the Confederate side that said the Seventh Tennessee Regiment of Archer’s Brigade shot down one of Beaufort’s cavalry. Because this was the only thing written about that particular part of the battle it was accepted. But, many years later many more accounts were written and it was officially decided that is was actually one of Beaufort’s cavalry. Because of the Tennesseans bias toward making their contribution to the battle bigger they changed their interpretation and thereby changing history.

Through the contributions of historiography, it has now become a wide field that can be argued over and interpreted time and time again.

Till next week,

matteavs

Historiography 1

Historiography I

Leopold von Ranke stated, “the purpose of history was to clarify our notion of the origin and nature of the state.” What are the roles of the writers of history, historians? What makes them qualified to do this?

These questions were all answered by the reading this week and through our class time. Historians are not supposed to just explain history but interpret it. What this actually means has evolved since the professions birth in the nineteenth century. One evolution that has made an extreme impact on myself is what James Harvey Robinson describes. He gives a very good descriptive analysis of the shift in the history field from what we described in class as the Great Man History to wanting to learn about the everyman and how he lived his life. He also describes the shift from the interest in the sensational to the interest in the normal.

William Cronon, in his essay listed the qualifications that make up the profession and then presented his own thoughts on what should make up the training to be admitted to the historical guild. What makes Cronon’s thoughts interesting and challenging are not the list of qualifications but his own ideas. For myself they challenged my own ideas of training I will need. Cronon specifically talked about the Public History field, which is what I want to go into. He challenged the divergence that many public historians feel separates them from academia. He believes that public historians could have an academic training to understand the beginnings of the history in which they are presenting.

One topic that was discussed in a majority of the essays was the role of bias in history and accepting the natural bias that occurs in the writing of history. For me the bias of history is what makes the profession interesting and fresh. It is what keeps the profession going and limitless. Topics such as the Civil War and World War II are written about over and over again. But, what makes each work refreshing is the bias that occurs which makes it different from all works that came before it. Historians then analyze these works and write their own that will be analyzed in the future.

The key part of this is originality for the historians to keep asking new questions and interpreting in new ways. As William Cronon states, “Interpretation is as important as explanation.” Historians can all explain the events that they study. But, what sets them apart is how they analyze them and present it to the reader. Out of this interpretation questions are asked such as: “What is the larger picture?” or “Why is this important?” We also learn about the historian’s own time from their writings. For example we were able to learn about the nineteenth century and the moral codes of the time through Lord Acton’s writings.

As Carl Becker states, “History is the memory of things said and done.”

Till next week,

matteavs