Joan W. Scott

‘Gender’ is a useful category when it is used to see history from two different points of view.  A time of war, for example, may have been bloody and rough from the male perspective, but for women, though it may have been rough, it would have been difficult and sad.  A man, during that point in history, would have seen war, watched friends die, and would be  fighting battle after battle.  A woman, on the other hand, would have been at home, taking care of the children, trying to get by on what little they had to live on, and would be worrying about their husband, boyfriend, or father every single day.  With the two different ‘gender’ views available, one can imagine themselves as someone from that era just by taking it all in.  They no longer have to see themselves as an onlooker.

Joan W. Scott

‘Gender’ is a useful category when it is used to see history from two different points of view.  A time of war, for example, may have been bloody and rough from the male perspective, but for women, though it may have been rough, it would have been difficult and sad.  A man, during that point in history, would have seen war, watched friends die, and would be  fighting battle after battle.  A woman, on the other hand, would have been at home, taking care of the children, trying to get by on what little they had to live on, and would be worrying about their husband, boyfriend, or father every single day.  With the two different ‘gender’ views available, one can imagine themselves as someone from that era just by taking it all in.  They no longer have to see themselves as an onlooker.

Native Americans

The first section of the paper is explaining what the world was like at the time the books were written.  It explains what could have influenced the way the author wrote and their opinions on certain things.  The next section tells the reader how the information was gathered and used in the piece.  In other words, it is about the research done to put the piece together.

Following the research, the piece gives the information of different authors and how they compare to one another.  He shows the way the different people saw things.  The author of the paper does not go by dates of publications, but by the ideas.

The author of the paper then goes into the different time periods of the authors he is comparing.  By doing this, he shows how the research and views of the historians has changed over the years because of new evidence.  He later describes the information that was found so that the reader can understand the differences.

The writer finally compares the information by when it was gathered.  The author shows how it had changed over the years and why, which changes the format he began with.

Hexter’s Day

As a historian, my Day influences my results in different ways than others.  Based on the way I see things and the way I live every single day, I am probably more modest than others.  This means that I live a more conservative life, which also shows the type of historian I am.  Others may describe a certain event in history in one way, while I describe it in another.  Being more modest, I would most likely be less descriptive in gory details than those who feel that it is important to write every single gruesome fact.  Since I am a modest person, I would definitely write the facts and, unfortunately, go less into detail about whatever I am writing.  I would have to put in the additional effort to write what I know and what extra facts need to be added for others to know.

The Historian’s Craft

In the second chapter and on page 50 of The Historian’s Craft, Marc Bloch writes, “I ask questions.  I note, compare, and compute answers.”  Though he was talking about things happening in the present, it applies to history.  It spoke to me in particular, because it gives me an idea of how to write the upcoming paper.  I will have to ask questions about why I think the Fall of Rome occurred and why I think that is the cause.  Since there are many sources, I will have to compare all of them and draw a conclusion, according to Bloch.

In the third chapter, on page 111, Bloch writes, “depending upon the circumstances, agreement of one testimony with the other testimonies may lead to opposite conclusions.”  This means something to me, because it explains that the information I find may not be exactly what had happened, but it can give me a good idea of what did.  This is also helpful, because I will definitely find that the people have different views on the actual outcome.  It is something to look back on when comparing different sources.

In chapter four, on page 145, Bloch writes about a certain inscription.  Nothing very important, but it was written for a reason.  He says, “Yet, nothing can be more variegated than the evidences which there await the probing of the scholar’s lancet.”  This urges me to think about how to begin looking at the evidence.  I makes me want to start with looking for evidence of certain incidences, so I can break it down.  After I break it down, I will definitely be able to compare and contrast all of the gathered sources.

Peter Brown

Peter Brown was privileged to use letters and “inside” information as evidence.  It seems his writing is more of a commentary, so the sources he relies on are really secondary ones.  Though they may not have been seen in person, Brown relies on letters to get a feel for how the people lived and how they felt about certain issues.  The “inside” information about people of high standing, the clergy for example, was written by people like Jerome.  If someone was on the inside, or close to popular people, then they were able to get the “juicy” information.

Bryan Ward-Perkins

Bryan Ward-Perkins is privileged to use primary sources for evidence.  He starts off the first chapter explaining the Bishop of Rome’s letters to his colleagues.  The only way he could have gotten and explained the information in the letters is if Perkins was able to study them in person.  He later quotes what seams like a secondary source, based on the second person, plural used.  Perkins mostly relies on the primary source.  The letters and texts (Life of a fifth-century saint) are all primary sources and the secondary ones are based off of them.

Carl Becker’s Argument

Carl Becker argues that since “History is the memory of things said and done,” the common man is an historian.  Everyone has memories, sees things in a certain way, and imagines what will happen because of it.  History, in Becker’s argument, is anything that leads to something, including something as simple as opening a door.  After one opens the door, since it happened in the past, it becomes history.  A man becomes “his own historian” by the decisions he makes and on top of that, why and how he came to the conclusion that something should be done.

Historians can be very objective, because when writing historical facts, they write what they see and what they believe concerns them.  This being said, the things that historians write can be bias, so one can only see it from one point of view and not from what something looks like from another.

Historical Ethics

These six articles serve as a ’round table’ discussion of the problem of ethics in the field of history, and were actually fairly unnerving to read while working on my final paper, much in the way that reading about horrific car accidents can be unnerving to read while learning to drive. Nonetheless, they serve as a useful snapshot of ethical problems and solutions in the profession (albeit in 2004).

Each approached the problem from a different way, but each definitely hammered n that plagarism is, in fact, a problem. Some disagreed as to its source– in his essay, Gorn blames the marketization of history as a profession– but all agreed that it was a problem. Unfortunately, it’s often a subtle and difficult problem to find, and Michael Grossberg found it difficult to offer a solution better than “I’ll know it when I see it,” which doesn’t sit well on my shoulders.

Honestly, my favorite solution was that offered by Fox. If students feel comfortable doing original research by themselves, they may not feel the need to plagarize as pressingly. I know I could have done with some guidance in the nature of research a lot earlier than I got it; I still often feel like I don’t really know what I’m doing. I worry if that’s what even professional historians feel when they sit down with a stack of eight books about the Civil War and wonder if what they’re doing really counts.

The Lost Museum

The Lost Museum was an interesting, if somewhat aging, exercise in learning via the Internet. Though I could wax poetic about the graphics and engine that date back to the earlier part of the last decade– I’m fairly certain I played a game very similar to this in middle school– I was actually rather impressed with the documents that were linked into the game, such as the slave contract. They made the experience, for me, giving what was otherwise mildly cheesy an atmosphere of historic authenticity. That’s what interactive games and the like are best at, I find: they create immersion, helping the player to feel present and creating a sense of place that is often otherwise absent.