Reading Gaddis’ text, in a way, helped get me thinking in different ways about how history and its methods work. For me, the most interesting part of the text was the distinction between types of causes in the sixth chapter, because it helped expand my view of causation.

Where previously I wouldn’t have even considered the impact that the formation of the Japanese islands had on the attack on Pearl Harbor, thanks to Gaddis it know seems obvious to me that the attack couldn’t have happened without the islands forming. Usually, I would only look at the most recent thing or things that preceded an event as possible causes, but know I realize that things that happened long before are also causes—just slightly less relevant ones.

I was also very interested by exceptional and general causes, and the idea of context’s effect on consequences. I guess it isn’t so much that it was news to me, but that it highlighted something I had often glossed over. The same conditions, for example, that cause car accidents exist very often without causing car accidents. But with the addition of one other, new cause, an accident can occur.

I think this recognition of varying levels of causes is important to the way we see history because it can help us choose which causes to highlight. Not only that, but it gives more options of causes to highlight. With all of these different things to focus on, there are any number of ways to interpret history, and with that, more chances to get closer to the truth