History 204, Fall 2015

Author: Pat

Ida and Neighbors

October 13, 2015 / / 0 Comments

Kyle Donahue

Neighbors, and Ida both provide a story that needs to be told, but I think they each tell the same story in a dramatically different way. Neighbors by Jan Gross, I believe points to the huge massacres happening in the town of Jedweben and what that said about a nation. Gross is trying to paint a picture unlike any ever told before. The awful crimes against humanities that occurred were always done by the Nazis, but Gross is pointing to the nation of Poland as the evil, along with the Nazis. This picture must be hard to swallow because I can only imagine the shock this piece brought. Ida on the other hand is a smaller story. The story that effects a small family, and provides a smaller scope. Ida does a crazy thing, by bringing in a nun as the main character, because the Catholic Church in both stories becomes the main villain. They wanted the Jews out, and that is as far as the similarity goes for me because Ida brings in the close relationships of a family torn apart by these horrific crimes. Neighbors grander scale approach succeeds in making it easy to know, “Ok the polish did some awful things too and they need to be punished”, where Ida brings the confusion into the question. You see people who are a part of the groups who are responsible, Anna the nun who is catholic, and Wanda who is a judge for the Polish government. It makes them both reevaluate what happened and who is to blame, but it doesn’t give you a clear answer. Which is what makes the two stories different and to me Ida provides a more realistic feeling of the people of Poland. Although it would be easier to make a scapegoat and blame a group or specific identity it isn’t what is happening. Confusion is my guess of the general feeling of Poland and confusion is good because it makes people reevaluate and ask questions.

 

Seeing like a Historian

October 7, 2015 / / 0 Comments

 

In Gaddis’ chapter, “Seeing like a Historian”, Gaddis brings up the interesting question of representation. He talks about how historians’ own perspective and how they can alter the history. The most interesting part that I took from the reading was the discussion of whether freedom could exist without oppression. This really made me think about it in a way I never thought. I always thought of those items as different entities, but without each other what would the other even be. That is when seeing as a historian comes into play. For me I take events and make a conclusion based on common thoughts about that event. But what I must transform into is taking an event and understanding that many different actions can lead to an event and there might be many answers not just one overarching conclusion that makes looking at a certain event easy. This is how the freedom and oppression come into play. It is easy to say you know what freedom is but when you really think about freedom is what we think it is because we are all we have to base it off of. We must look at the different levels of freedom and not just ask do you have freedom or not.

Doing History

September 24, 2015 / / 0 Comments

When I write research papers I begin with trying to find out as much background information as possible. Like many other people I just use google and find out the basics. After I think I have a good sense of the material I then try to find out what the argument or problem is and find out both sides. This helps me create an argument of my own. After this I tend to then go to class notes because this reveals exactly what the professor finds important and steers me in the right direction. I then find my main points. This is the hardest part, because this will be the main chunk of my paper and choosing wrong can cause a paper to stink. Like I said I go back to class notes and then check sources to see what has the most material. This whole process is tricky and one mistake can cause you to have to go back to the beginning.

 

While reading Methods and Skills I realized a huge mistake I make while writing papers: I tend to use arguments and make them facts. I should know that even when I make an argument I take the facts I need and use them to my advantage, even if it stretches out the actual point. While researching I need to find more primary sources because those can’t be argued with and that is where a huge improvement can be made in my writing.

How archives built a nation

September 16, 2015 / / 0 Comments

Kyle Donahue

 

The readings of Durba Ghosh and Jennifer S. Milligan both show the great importance of archives in how a historian produces their work. Mulligan and Ghosh each examined what archives prove to be essential in exploring the history of a country. The main focus of the readings reflects on the importance archives and the national narrative of a country.

 

Milligan refers constantly to how archives reinforce the foundation of a nation. The argument proves this by using official state documents to show that France’s archives have a huge effect on the legitimacy of a country. I somewhat agree with the theory of these documents the archives provide delivering credence to a nations narrative. But where I disagree is that the archives support can’t be the foundation of a national narrative alone but only supporting details.

 

Ghosh’s reading brings credence to how archives can provide different types of archives and shows two distinct opposites of archives being used. From Great Britain using it to show support to interracial marriage by having tons of documents support the idea to India showing a clear opposition and not using archives at all. This is why I do not like using archives as a backbone of national narratives because documents are helpful but not as powerful as other methods.

 

 

Again I would say the archives here could not solely contribute to a building of a nation but contribute. Lets use Dickinson as an example, our archives help support the history that the community as created by providing documents that show the culture. But they only support because without the culture already being built I do not believe archives could create a culture by itself.

Detection and Historical Method

September 9, 2015 / / 0 Comments

Kyle Donahue

Prof. Bilodeau

Being a detective, and being a historian are two life paths that some would argue overlap, and some would argue are opposites. Usually when this is the case it falls somewhere in the middle.

Being a detective takes great instincts and a gut. A detective needs intuition that will lead them to solving the case. Being a historian takes patience, and a will to dig through every available resource. A historian needs knowledge that allows them to draw information they need to uncover truth.

After reading, Daughter of Time, by Josephine Tey the similarities of detective and historian work are shown. Both detectives and historians need to take on a large question, or debated topic and then funnel it down into more specific information that can be used to formulate an answer. A detective must take an objective view at a case by looking at all the possible answers and not just the answer they believe to be true, just as a historian must look at every source and not just the ones that support there point of view to make their point easier to defend. Both detectives and historians reach a lot of dead ends. For example, a detective might have its prime suspect be ruled out because of an alibi even if the detective was sure he did it. Just as a historian might finally have found a document to support a claim but find this source to be unreliable. Detectives and historians both have jobs that egos must be left and the door and use no bias in determining facts from fiction.

The differences between detectives and historians tend to show in the results. Detectives must find an answer relatively quickly while historians tend to have time on their side. Another difference that may be obvious but not talked about a lot is public perception. If you asked a random person what a more appealing profession is I would bet on them saying detective. Movies are made about detectives, Sherlock Holmes, CSI, etc. but historians get the old grumpy guy reading thousand year documents, and even though Indiana Jones was sort of a historian I bet most people forget that part.

Historians and detectives are both tasked with similar goals: finding answers, and while the methods to that end goal may be different, finding those answers takes instincts, patience, guts, and knowledge on both sides.

© 2024 History 204, Fall 2015


Academic Technology services: GIS | Media Center | Language Exchange

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑