I think that Ida and Neighbors, while complimentary, and certainly related, tell different stories,
Ida providing a human aspect that Neighbors lacks. The film creates a face and a story for the staggering statistics and numbers that make up the backbone of Gross’ book. While Neighbors is compelling in its own right, with snippets of personal anecdotes and half-included tales of a larger story, Ida provides the story the book presents evidence for. The film fills in the lacuna; Ida’s quest for her family’s history and her own story acts similar to my own quest for details while reading Neighbors. The book is wonderful in that it constructs a case with supporting evidence and testimony. However, the film follows a continuous storyline focused on one character, giving it a resolution I simply did not find in the book.
While I enjoyed the book (as much as a book about a massacre can be enjoyed), I found it difficult to wrap my head around. How could ordinary people, much like you or I, orchestrate the murder or an entire village of people, of their neighbors? Although Ida did not answer this question for me, it did provide me with a face to focus on, to represent a larger group. While it is hard to visualize the perpetrators of this violence, I found it similarly difficult to imagine the victims. Just as I could easily be the murderer, I could also be the murdered. In a situation so far removed from anything I have experienced, it is impossible to know which side I would stand on. I like to imagine I would stand on the side of justice and humanity, heroically saving the Jews, but history has proven this unlikely. It is far more plausible that I would either be killed, if I was Jewish, or partake in the massacre- although as a woman, my chances at simply being a bystander are higher (however, this is horrible in its own right).
I think the lesson here is that the book and the film need to be taken together. The book provides the hard knowledge, an accurate account of what happened, while the movie makes the massacre more relatable. Together, I questioned my role in history- who I would be if caught in a similar scenario. Neighbors made me curious for more information, while Ida made me question myself.
Author: knoopm
My approach to research and papers normally varies depending on the topic. If I am given a lot of choice on my topic, and only given a specific region or era to go off of, I will read through the relevant Wikipedia pages until I find a topic that I find both interesting and appropriate for a research paper. From there, I will use JumpStart on the Dickinson College website, including both key and broad search terms to look at relevant articles, and begin to hone my topic even farther. As my research progresses, I will begin to look at the sources and footnotes of articles I found particularly helpful, and then use those as new search terms. Sometimes this is helpful, while other times it leads me down a rabbit hole.
However, search engines have their limitations as well. Google Scholar, while helpful, does not always bring up relevant articles, while other times the sites charge exorbitant prices. Some search engines are difficult to use and only helpful while using specific terms. However, the college library website has subscriptions to a wide array of excellent websites, including ones for specific subjects, such as ancient art, or neuroscience. Learning how to navigate these sites and search engines is essential to researching and writing a paper. While this takes some time, now that I have had some experience with them, I feel much better equipped to tackle intimidating research papers.
This week’s reading has not taught me new information, but rather it has articulated thoughts and notions that I had learned from my own experiences, but was not actively aware that I applied them to my work. It has also taught me some terms, such as “summary” versus “limited interpretation” generalizations. While these are not knew concepts, I was not aware of them terms used to describe them. This week’s work has taught me to slow down and carefully examine historical evidence and documents to truly understand its implications and information.
By McKinley Knoop
As Ghosh notes in her article “National Narratives and Politics of Miscegenation,” the very smell of the archives has been preserved from ages past. Within the archives exists a time and place lost to modernity, from the very smell of the records down to the individual books. Hidden among the numerous records and accounts lies the secret history of nations, remaining in wait for someone to uncover the past. Without the archives to safeguard the remaining remnants of our past, we would be unable unlock the motives and causalities of bygone times. It is through archives that we can read letters from Revolutionary War celebrities John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, as well as from the politically insignificant farmers and peasants. Without archives, historians would have to resort to wild guessing, using modern-day frameworks and lenses to view a historical mystery.
While archives are not necessarily integral to the creation of a nation, they are essential for upholding and supporting its continual existence. In her article “What is an Archive,” Milligan writes of a battle between the recognition of the laws of the state and the preservation of family honor. If Chabrier had allowed the private letters to be burned in order to uphold the Praslin name, he would have compromised the integrity of the archive, while setting precedence for the government to cave to private demands in the future. However, what right did the public have to access private records, to besmirch the name of innocent children? When and why were the public allowed to access the archives? Chabrier’s decision, while not directly influencing the creation of modern France, did set a model for future actions. The national archives of France thus established itself as a place of probity, constructing morals for a new nation.
Were the Dickinson archives the same way? Were they also important for the creation of the United States? While the Dickinson archives did not play the same role as those at say, the Library of Congress, they did play an important role in establishing a system of independent, reliable archives across the United States, unconnected to the whims and impulses of the federal government. Along with thousands of other archives and private libraries across America, the Dickinson archives provide a check to the factuality and inclusiveness of the government archives. If the government decided to erase or destroy certain records of history, our independent documents would be able to account for gaps or inconsistencies. Although the Dickinson archives were not in and of itself important for the creation of our nation, they do play an important role in establishing and maintaining honesty in history.
In famous detective novels, the main characters all have one obvious trait in common- they solve mysteries, with the manner in which they go about solving their murders and robberies varying little. The important whos, whats, wheres, whens, and whys does not differ greatly between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew. Nor does the process of examining evidence and investigating suspects contrast much between Hercule Poirot and the Hardy Boys. Yet if a Parisian C. Auguste Dupine from the mid-1800s looked at the same mystery as a Swedish Mikael Blomkvist from 2005, how could they not draw the same conclusions?
Every written account, every author, every historian, and every detective looks at the same event through a different lens. A detective from 20th century Europe might consider anti-Semitism as a motive for a murder, while one from colonial America might place more emphasis on pro-British leanings as the cause. Everyone to ever exist has had different experiences, grown up in different eras, was raised in different cultures. Even two siblings, similar in age, will have different temperaments and motives that influence and bias their opinions and observations, explaining how predilections can sway conclusions.
Although it is impossible to completely avoid all predispositions and penchants, it is important that both historians and detectives attempt to minimize bias on their quest for the truth. Neither can form opinions without first the presence of fact, and however tempting, they must not force the evidence to fit a particular conclusion. In Josephine Tey’s novel, The Daughter of Time, Inspector Alan Grant, a detective dabbling in history, forced himself to examine both sides of the argument in order to ensure the evidence only fit his theory, not the opposition’s as well.
While Grant manages to easily slip out of his role as detective, and into his position as historian, it is important to note the difference between the two. As a detective, Grant is used to examining the human side of mysteries; knowing motivations and reading facial expressions has helped him in his career. However, history is more confining. Without being present, it is impossible to know mood and tone except through second-hand accounts, all of which- through their very nature- have biases. Therefore, as Grant learns, it is important to stick to the facts, to the information that cannot lie- receipts, tickets, and the like.
Tey’s novel helps clarify the difference between detection and historical method, and yet without using both, Grant would never have solved the mystery of Richard III. Although on the surface level there are many similarities between the two fields, differences begin to appear when talking about the types of evidence admissible.