The question is a difficult one, as Ida and Neighbors can be viewed as either complements or separate entities, and both answers can be argued with validity. However, it was very interesting to view the two pieces as complements. I was unable to attend the movie viewing on Sunday because I had a paper due at midnight, so I watched the movie on my own. I actually read Neighbors first, and it was hard not to see parallels. Neighbors mentions that a very small number of Jews survived the massacre, Ida can be seen as a possible life for one of the few Jews who escaped. While Ida does not directly explain how and why Ida’s parents were murdered, it does emphasize the fact that a family was killed by a trusted neighbor. Much like the killings in Neighbors, local Jews were killed not by uniformed Germans, but by young and familiar Poles.
However, it is important to acknowledge the differences, as well as the complements, from both of these stories. Ida is a hauntingly good movie, eliciting feelings of sympathy, despair, and at times, hopelessness. As noted in our Method’s book, a good movie intends to draw in an audience, and needs to keep viewers entertained, moving the plot forward, and following a general storyline that includes an exposition, rising actions, etc. While a historical account still needs to keep readers interested, it is not forced to fit a mold or plot line in the same way as a movie. There, Neighbors does appeal to emotions such as horror and outrage, it is done without the need to keep the reader entertained and in suspense in the same way as the maker of a movie. Neighbors sought to tell a forgotten and covered up horror of WWII, which was that the lives of many Polish Jews were lost not at the hands of the Nazis, but by their neighbors. The book includes quotations from depositions that describe with horrifying detail the massacre of the Jedwabne Jews. However, these accounts were often followed by describing the methods by which the sources were procured. While it is important to substantiate historical claims with evidence, this slowing down of the narrative proves to be a defining difference between Ida and Neighbors. Gross uses methodology and research to uncover an atrocity of the past. There is certainly a human aspect in history, although it is still largely based in facts. A film like Ida, however, is able to create a more relatable form of history. Rather than read scattered accounts, the viewer can follow the story of one Jew who survived, largely because she had no idea of her true identity. The power of Ida was its ability to cast a light on the personal effects felt by the war, while historical works such as Neighbors makes the creation of such movies a possibility.
Author: freundll
While Gaddis makes several points in his concluding chapter, a part I found interesting was how Gaddis summed up history as a tension of opposites. He furthers this point later in the chapter by mentioning how freedom cannot exist unless it is compared alongside oppression. It is an interesting concept, as most, if not all, of our ideas and expected social norms are defined by what they are not. The same goes for historical narratives, and it is important to remember narratives are constructed retellings, but they mean nothing if they have no comparison or background. However, I would be lying to claim I understood this entire chapter to its fullest extent. The chapter seemed a bit convoluted, and I struggled to follow all of his arguments. Many of them seemed circular, and I do not fully grasp his oppressor/oppressed argument enough to create a valid analyzation. I certainly attempted, although it was a thinly veiled garbage, so I deleted it and fully admit that my understanding of the conclusion is considerably weaker than the rest of the text.
However, the title of the last chapter, “Seeing Like a Historian,” does cause me to reflect on several of his major themes. For one, historical narratives are reconstructions of the past, created by interpretations of evidence, although it is impossible to completely recreate events. In order to be a historian, one must recognize and even embrace these limitations. Additionally, Gaddis stresses throughout the book that history is multi-causal, and an individual is not thinking like a historian if they attempt to locate a independent variable. Thus, history is not linear, and Gaddis leaves the work of attempting to predict the future to social scientists, as historians recognize the futility of these actions. Throughout the novel, Gaddis compares history to the natural sciences, and draws interesting parallels, as history is just as methodological as the sciences. Lastly, a vital skill of seeing like a historian is the ability to recreate historical possibilities in their mind, much like how experiments are performed in laboratories. While these ideas are not all encompassing, they are important aspects in thinking as a historian, and are necessary while creating history.
I have found that I have a fairly organized approach to research papers, although I find if I am too structured in my research, I limit the direction of my paper. I usually like to begin a research topic by rereading the source materials or lecture notes that inspired the essay prompt. I grab a piece of scrap paper, and I write down as many ideas related to the subject as possible. I like to brainstorm prior to using internet search engines because I feel the internet can distract me and delay this portion of the writing process. After I have several different angles I would like to investigate, I begin to use online search engines. Google can be helpful in determining if the subject is widely written about, but I tend to use academic search engines more often, as I am more likely to trust those sources. I then collect my sources and really attempt to wrangle out a thesis. However, my initial plan often changes once I actually find research. I usually like to go to office hours and discuss my paper with my professor, and I am often forced to rethink parts of my thesis and argument.
Reading the Methods and Skills textbook points out the importance of author bias and interpretation, and my biggest problem with research is I tend to rely on a lot of secondary sources. I usually use peer-reviewed sources, although I do need to look more closely into the primary sources. I have become used to accepting a majority of secondary sources at face value, although that is in large part due to the fact that a majority of research papers I have written have been scientific, not historical. I cannot recreate a scientist’s field data on salmon infected with sea lice, although I can read for myself a law passed during the eighteenth century that caused widespread outrage. My strategy for approaching research has been mostly successful, although I need to reframe my approach to match that of a skeptical historian.
The readings by both Ghosh and Milligan display the important role played by archivists in determining what information is considered valuable and useful to scholars and researchers. Additionally, the information deemed important by archivists is often influenced by a nationalist mentality, whether or not the archivist is aware of their bias. Ghosh’s experience with regards to her research on interracial marriages between the British and native Indians is a key example of the nationalist mindset. Her research with met with skepticism and blatant disrespect in the archives in India, as there was widespread denial that native Hindu women were involved in interracial relationships, and it was something “‘Muslim women did’” (Ghosh 29). On the other hand, however, the archivists in Britain took great interest in the topic, and felt that a multi-racial identity was to be embraced. The British view was, however, very nationalist, and promoted a false sense of harmony and interracial respect, as opposed to the very real tensions and violence that went hand in hand with colonial conquest. nationalism is created in order to foster support and unity amongst people who are governed by the same body. Nationalism, which unites the peoples of a country, is often created by a well-known national narrative. The United States, for instance, teaches an American history curriculum from kindergarten through high school, and every child grows up hearing the story of Paul Revere’s midnight right. While this common tale is not the epitome of historical accuracy, it creates a legend of American preparedness and resistance to the British. The legacy of the Revolutionary War helps define our collective history, creating strong senses of nationalism. The information given to the public determines how individuals view a collective past, and archives play a central role in the information that is available to contest or create a national narrative. Milligan’s piece emphasized the role archives play in the role of history-making in a different context. Rather than focus on what the archivists deemed important information, Milligan recounted how the establishment of the Archives nationales literally fostered an atmosphere that allowed scholars, historians, ands the public to create a French history. While Dickinson’s archives are not nearly as expansive as the ones discussed in the readings, our college has a long-standing history, and our location near Philadelphia certainly influences the documents the archives were able to obtain. Additionally, Dickinson is the first school “technically” chartered in the United States of America, which gives us an interesting time frame to begin collecting historical documents. While our archives do not have the sphere of influence to the same breadth as the Archives nationales, the archives at Dickinson certainly contain valuable information available to those who wish to utilize the resource. Our archives may not be the base of American history textbooks, but they do create a community of students who become familiar with the process of archival research. We do not create a nation with our Dickinson archives, but we can help cultivate and train the historians who will craft the newest interpretations of history.
Daughter of Time clearly displays the obvious similarities between historical method and detective work, which is seen by the relationship formed between Grant, a detective, and Carradine, a young research worker. For example, reliable testimony is central to developing an accurate timeline of events, in both detective and historical investigations. In the case of Richard III, the most commonplace and treasured narrative was written by a so-called contemporary historian. However, he was only five yeas old during the reign of Richard III, and wrote his account from heresy, gossip, and the tales of others. Upon checking the author’s age, it was obvious that the source was unreliable. Much like a witness who cannot produce evidence of their whereabouts, More’s account cannot be used as reliable information. Additionally, the cross-examination of evidence is a key component of both detective work and historical methodology. When Grant and Carradine read alternative, contemporary sources, they found no evidence to support the evil legacy that had followed Richard III. Furthermore, both detectives and historians are expected to find patterns to help create a logical timeline of events. For example, common knowledge places the murder of the two princes prior to Richard’s death. Upon examining alternative sources, however, the princes were very much alive during the reign of Richard III.
While the historical method does require many of the same aspects as detective work, there are pointed differences. For one, history is constructed, and contains author bias, whether or not it is intended. Detective work, on the other hand, leaves no room for interpretation. The role of a detective is to uncover exactly what happened, and how. Historians, however, must uncover and attempt to recreate the past using limited primary sources, accounts, and secondary sources. Detective work also focuses on the central goal of uncovering a motive. In this novel, the historical work came from a singular motive, which was to gain control of the English crown. However, few historians find a singular motive or catalyst for historical events, and usually discover that a multitude of factors drive significant changes. History is filled with differing interpretations of the past, while detective work seeks to find a single narrative. The methodology of examining testimonies, witnesses, and evidence show the similarities between history and detective work. However, they have significant differences that cannot be overlooked.