Like Elcaldwell mentioned, all three articles read examine the ways in which we analysis\/categorize history and the lenses through which we examine it. Rebecca Edwards, of Vassar College, passionately contributes to the thoughtful discussion that we have been having as a class about whether the label of \u201cGilded Age\u201d is appropriate and just for what actually happened during the time period we are discussing. In the editor\u2019s note of the \u201cForum: Should we abolish the \u2018Gilded Age\u2019\u201d, she argues, as many in our class stated, that the most prominent Gilded Age stereotypes and historical assumptions do not rightly characterize the era. To wit, she \u201cdraws on the political trends and movements and policy innovations of those decades\u201d and uproots the influences of other popular events like the Populist Party, the American Farmer\u2019s Alliance, the Interstate Commerce Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act, and muckraking journalism.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Edwards\u2019 argument regarding historicization of the Gilded Age is one of strength and valid historical backing, and I don\u2019t seek to reject her interpretation out of hand; but, I disagree with her determination to abolish the Gilded Age as a separate period. As the editor\u2019s note explains, her stance is part of a wider, more recent trend toward examining 1870-1920 as a single, unique period and possibly coining it the \u201clong progressive era.\u201d I completely agree with ElCaldwell\u2019s assumption that that her frustration with existing perspectives on the Gilded Age comes from teachers and students, not from historians. The common high school textbook or lesson plan from high school teachers usually wants to hit the huge history events before and after the Gilded Age and skims the time period by unfortunately, using terms that now drive the popular perception of the Gilded Age as one of pure corruption, crony capitalism and Jim Crow. Yet, even with these possibly misinformed high school textbooks, Edward\u2019s argument for a prolonged progressive era I believe falls short in comparison to Richard Schneirov\u2019s argument in \u201cThoughts on Periodizing the Gilded Age: Capital Accumulation, Society, and Politics, 1873-1898.\u201d Detailing a case for the distinct period of the Gilded Age, Schneirov, in my opinion, provides us with a more convincing argument to label the Gilded Age as a distinct period of its own that has very distinctive characteristics.\u00a0 I felt that Scheirnov\u2019s essay was more valid than Edward\u2019s as it used numerous historiographical evidence to support his claim for the periodization of the Gilded Age. Because this blog post does not allow me to go into further detail, our next assignment regarding a historiography, I will expand upon the great historiographical example by Scheirnov. Along with his examination of recent work and supporting evidence of periodization, Scheirnov briefly explains his opinion on the beginning date of this period and the differing views surrounding this seemingly unimportant but extremely interesting periodization factor. This possible small scale difference opens up the flood gates for a bigger question and a historiographical analysis of the start and finish of the Gilded Age.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Like Elcaldwell mentioned, all three articles read examine the ways in which we analysis\/categorize history and the lenses through which we examine it. Rebecca Edwards, of Vassar College, passionately contributes to the thoughtful discussion that we have been having as a class about whether the label of \u201cGilded Age\u201d is appropriate and just for what … <\/p>\n