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

Cidade de Deus Blog

Authority Turned On It’s Head

In Cidade de Dues or City of God the storyline they used of not telling the entire story in a linear fashion was very efficient. They were able to portray to the watcher the varying levels of the story by only showing what pertained to the person they were focusing on. One example of this is the scene where the Tender Trio goes and robs the brothel. They show that people have been shot but they do not show who has killed them. They also do not tell were Lil Dice has gone. Later on they show that Lil Dice went back in and killed the people. This shows that although the gang robbed the people they were not as vicious as shooting them. This helps to further the theme that the hoods are becoming more vicious every new generation. Another example of this generation-to-generation change is the chapter called “The Story of the Apartment.” It shows how the apartment was started basically from a woman just dealing weed to make some money but it shows how it moves from hand to hand and also how it changes. How from generation to generation the apartment goes in worse disrepair. One other part of this is that being in City of God you will eventually be pulled into the violence. The main motto for the movie would be that violence feeds more violence and that it is a tragic circle of life. One example of this is Knockout Ned. He is not involved in the hoods at the first of the movie. But, when his wife his raped for him being attractive he takes revenge and kills people in Lil Z’s gang. Then in Carrot’s gang he kills a man when robbing a bank who is an innocent bystander. This man’s son Otto eventually joins the gang and then kills Knockout Ned in revenge. This is why it was so important for Rocket to break out of this.

Another theme that runs throughout the movie is how fundamental the gang’s control of the favela has become. It has become institutional, religious, and basic in the way the favela has been run. Hart discusses this in his article, when he talks about the shamanistic ritual that changes Lil Dice’s name to Lil Z. It is a ritual that has been set up to bless these gang members, to support what they are doing and further it.

One of the most important parts of this movie is its placement in the “testimonio” genre. Because it was a novel first, many of the forms that are used in the book and translated into the movie. Hart points out that when making the movie they did not want to lose any of the poetic value of the novel. They wanted it to tell the story of the bad things that occurred in the favela but also to give many messages about it. Undercurrents of the media, religion, violence, and rising above are able to play out in the movie’s unique story line.

One important element to the story that Hart hints at is the importance of ever-changing relationships. They can mean the likelihood of life or death. One example of this is Benny. Benny grew up with Lil Dice but he meets one kid who changes the way he looks and brings him into the groovy group, he then meets a girl who changes everything for him and makes him not want to be a hood anymore. These relationships change him.

One of the underemphasized parts of The City of God in all the articles is that the authority that should have existed is undermined and twisted. The police as it turns out have been involved in racketeering. They are helping to keep the gangs going which in turn keeps the violence going. As stated in the article by Julio Cesar Pino it keeps the subprolitariat population. Because of the situation with economy and the debasing of it. Also, the City of God and the gang violence going on it has become a spectacle for the middle class. This is shown through the pictures being shown in the newspaper. They do not see the destroying of the City of God through violence.

Che.....

"Love of humanity... of justice and truth. A real revolutionary goes where he is needed."

Building on what we have learned of Che Guevara through the Motorcycle Diaries this movie continued the perspective of Che as a protectorate of the indigenous people. That the people at the bottom were the ones who he felt had no voice whatsoever and that he needed to speak out for them. This is spoken about in his “Message to the Tricontinental” when he is speaking on the Korean War. He talks about how the United States was experimenting with the Korean people different weapons of war. He specifically uses the language cannon fodder, which evokes a certain ethos. He then continues to devolve into a discussion about the Vietnam War. He talks about how the Vietnam people are actually just a puppet in the role between imperialistic countries. What are even more interesting about this article are Che’s feelings about America. This contrasting emotion towards the United States can be seen in this article and in the movie. He believes President Johnson’s “Great Society” reforms will never actually succeed. He also believes that these weak trials are making Vietnam worse. This is very revealing about Che because one would think he would appreciate Johnson’s reforms but he does not.

Che also talks about in this speech the United State’s aggression to keep the status quo of it’s own power in the world. He emphasizes what the United States did in Panama. Which he also does in the movie during the speech at the United Nations. Che’s statements on neocolonialism are very interesting in that they keep the economic status the same as it was before. One of the remarkable things that stand out about Che in all of his works is his language. One example is from this article when he uses the words fiefs to describe the colonial holdings of these imperialistic countries.

“Violence is not the monopoly of the exploiters and as such the exploited can use it too and, moreover, ought to use it when the moment arrives.”

One of the most important parts of this movie was showing how guerilla warfare was developed in the eyes of Che Guevara. He made many distinctions during the movie about what it was and what it was not. It was not a group that wrecked havoc on the indigenous countryside. He believed that these were the people they were fighting to liberate not to destroy. These sentiments were backed up through the article “Guerilla Warfare: A Method.” He talks about what it means to do this kind of warfare. The main part is that it is a means to an end. This is a misnomer of Che Guevara as seen through the interviews with the Americans throughout the movie. He wants to accomplish a finished product through his idea of warfare. He believes in the strength of the people and that through guerilla warfare they earn back the right to govern their country. He believes most importantly in two central factors he feels are necessary. One that there has a to be a central rural basis. This is shown in the movie by their very well constructed camps. The other is the importance of education and the guerilla troops them being educated. He makes sure that the guerilla troops are taught well in these schools. He also does not believe that an urban warfare can truly work. This is shown in the movie when Castro tries to make a deal with the urban fighters and Che does not like it.

“A country that can’t read and write is easy to deceive.”

One of the most important concepts to know about Che Guevara was that he wanted to spread what had occurred in Cuba throughout South America. He felt from an early age that “this America” as he called it deserved its time. This is what he says in the end. That he wants to take it throughout Southern and Central America. As indicated by the documents about the fall of Che Guevara he did not stay in Cuba for this exact reason. He felt that his real job of creating and keeping alive the revolution was done and that he was better elsewhere. In Che’s own document he does comment that the United States wants to prevent another Cuba from happening, which would lead one to believe that he knew the United States, did not approve of what he was doing. It would also show that he knew that his life might be in danger from United States forces because of his continued revolutionary sentiment. 

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. 

Week 8-Motorcycle Diaries

I am going to take this week off.
Till next week,
mattevs

"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