armando35 – Historical Thinking

History in the age of technology

November 13, 2016armando35

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Chapter 7 of Popkin served as a summary of sorts because it tied all the previous theories and methods together. This chapter was also used to talk about the more recent ways in which history has been studied and how these methods are used to study certain topics. Popkin mentions several new technology based resources that have become heavily used and how they have shaped the study of history. For example, he mentions how the advent of computers and the internet poses issues of note taking for older historians who are unaccustomed to this new technology, while younger historians grew up with it (Popkin 172). Using journals and peer reviews as an example, he points out how the internet leads to questions about credibility because every source has the same weight (Popkin 175). Technology in general has allowed almost anyone to be involved with the study of history because it isn’t solely confined to books, journals, or even schools; there are many new mediums in which history can be accessed. As a millennial who grew up with a variety of “new” ways to learn, it is difficult to see my life without them; the ability to learn through television shows, films, and novels allows us to realize the validity of Popkin’s claims. Popkin mentions how films and television allow people to learn about history but he warns that they aren’t always objective and that they may sacrifice accuracy for the sake of publicity (popkin 175). I believe Popkin’s argument about technology can be used to scrutinize the way in which propaganda was used during the Dust Bowl and whether it had any influence on the results, a point highlighted by raldrich in his post.

Battlefield 1

November 8, 2016armando35

What I decided to do for my history event is play a video game called Battlefield 1. This game is for the PlayStation 4, Xbox one, and PC; its a first-person shooter game that takes place during World War 1. I point out that is a first-person shooter which means that you play the game through the eyes of the character as opposed to a third-person shooter where you see the player from an overhead view because first person makes the game more realistic. In my opinion first person shooter games are more immersive because you can only see what is directly in front of you; this means that the risk of getting shot from your blind-spots is a lot higher. Playing the game is one way to get a view into what a solider during the war may have experienced because you face some of the same dangers; for example you must deal with mustard gas, the horrors of trench warfare, flying biplanes, and even naval warfare. In addition, the players get to learn about the different nations involved in the war as well as all the theaters in which the war took place. I love military history and I know a lot about both World Wars so I notice things that I doubt many people realize. For example, the game has a mass array of guns that didn’t exist until World War II yet they are included in a game about World War 1; I presume this it to make the game-play more interesting. Another example is the use of trains; while they were used in the war they did not have turrets and canons as they do in the game but they were used to transport troops. So while the game is a great way to have some fun and learn some cool trivia facts it shouldn’t be used a reference to learn about the war. That being said, this game is a great way to get people’s attention about an event that they will hopefully learn more about. Here is a link to some game-play footage in case anyone is interested in seeing how this game plays

What Earthquake?

October 23, 2016armando35

The San Fransisco Earthquake had great implications on the interactions between politicians, scientists, business, the media and the average citizens. Most of the business people and boosters in the 1900’s believed the earthquake would deter people from investing in the city so they blamed the fire; even the Governor George Pardee proclaimed that the fire did more damage (Steinberg 108). Business was not the only group to downplay the earthquake, newspapers argued that it was a “unique calamity” and for that reason people over emphasized what occurred (Steinburg 108). As we now know, California is prone to many earthquakes but some residents of California in the early 1900s’ refused to acknowledge this fact even though there were other earthquakes prior to the 1906 earthquake ( Steinburg 106). This being said, there were some people such as geologists Karl Gilbert, Andrew Lawson, and John Branner who tried to make the public aware of the dangers of earthquakes but they were ignored (Steinberg 111). Scientists weren’t the only ones involved with the destruction wrought by the earthquakes, insurance companies had to discern between destruction caused by the earthquake which was not covered in the insurance plans or destruction from fires which was covered (Steinberg 111). By underselling the danger of earthquakes and instead focusing on fires, the people of San Fransisco suffered greater losses of lives and property in the future. Once people began to realize that earthquakes could not be ignored, laws were passed to make structures that could sustain earthquakes. In principle this was a good idea, but shortcuts were taken to reduce costs while simultaneously at the expense of the people occupying the structures . Steinberg points out that when a disaster strikes the people who take the brunt of the force are the underprivileged; this conflict is similar to the struggle between the bourgeois and proletariat something ramsescastilloo3 mentioned in his post. The “seismic deniers” had a direct influence on the way the San Fransisco fire is remembered, their propaganda about the fire makes it difficult to discern how much destruction the earthquake really caused; it also affected the way people would view earthquakes in the future.

History in the 19th century

October 15, 2016armando35

The 19th century was when the study of history began to grow and was recognized as a formal area of study, for that reason it underwent profound changes. Historians began to write about more than just what occurred, they began think about the past critically. While some historians questioned why something occurred others focused on writing in truthful way, meaning they had to use primary sources to deduce to their best ability what really occurred (Popkin 76). Among other things, Leopold von Ranke was the first historian to successfully utilize primary sources; he also introduced the notion of the seminar which provoked discussion and critical thinking. As a whole, the study of history became more inclusive as it moved away from biographies of wealthy individuals and works praising a monarch to writings celebrating whole communities. Many nations found a new outlet to recount the history of their nation and take pride in the way in which their society had developed. This being said, the praise of one group of people came at the expense of other groups. For example, the new Nationalistic ways of thinking that arose from the Revolutions in America, France and other parts of Europe elevated certain cultures for looking forward but simultaneously suppressed minority groups like the Jewish (Popkin 82). History also excluded women because people believed that they were incapable of studying objectively, they believed they would let their feelings get in the way which would cloud their judgement (Popkin 90). I believe that this exclusion of certain groups and the female gender took away from the practice of history because it gave a slanted perception of what occurred. The arguments between historians were also pretty limited because most historians were males from similar backgrounds; ideas from different races and genders would’ve made the discussions more interesting. I think if historians wanted to change the way history was written they had to change their mindset, a point ngojoesph highlighted in his post.

Cooperation is key

October 4, 2016armando35

Reading “It Must Be Made Safe” gives us another view point in which we can look at the Galveston hurricane; it allows us to analyze the way in which the aftermath of the storm was dealt with. Many of the citizens in Galveston knew their city was in danger since before the huge hurricane hit; solutions were proposed to fix the surrounding problem before it became a problem but those solutions were never turned into formal plans. No one will know for certain what kept the people of Galveston from taking care of the problem sooner rather than later but its evident that most people blamed the city officials for not taking action. Bixel points out how ” Galveston political leaders were perceived by the white elite of the city to be more ill-equipped than most (Bixel 228).” Local business took the initiative and decided to restructure the way the city’s government was run, changing the way from a democracy to a business. This new method seemed to have worked with a “98 percent turnout (Bixel 234)” to approve the bonds that would be used to pay for the sea wall. In @Jessica42 post she mentions how Issac was the one to blame for the destruction of the city because he had some knowledge about its path but we now know that the citizens of Galveston knew the destruction of their city was eminent. After the storm, people banded together to rebuild their city and protect it against future storms; they used the knowledge of leading engineers, investments from business owners, and bonds to make their dream of a safer city a reality. Galveston can be seen as an example of how different members of a community need to work together to solve a problem, one person or one group isn’t enough. This notion can be amplified to include different levels of government which must work together in times of disaster to help people. If there is no cooperation people will suffer; a recent example of this failure is New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

More than just a storm

September 27, 2016armando35

The way in which Larson wrote the book was an effective way to tell the story of the flood and to show the inner workings of the Weather Bureau because both were intertwined, the cities demise may have not occurred the way it did if the Bureau was better prepared or more communicative. The story of Issac and the flood show a fault in our society and maybe even our government, the fact that the city of Galveston was reliant on Issac to be their eyes and ears is a bit concerning. It is true that Issac had a pretty good understanding of hurricanes worked but the information he was receiving from the different stations along with the few instruments he had weren’t sufficient enough for him to know the path of the hurricane. Issac clearly blamed himself for the destruction of Galveston, ” he gave up the study of climate and health and concentrated instead on trying to find out why the storm had been so deadly (Larson 270)” but the story of Issac was more than just about one man; it probed society to think how they could let so many people die. As @oosegueda said, “the writing style does a better job of letting the reader step into the shoes of the people that experienced the destruction of the Galveston hurricane.” http://courses.shroutdocs.org/hist300a-fall2016/archives/296 The latter half of Issac’s storm was increasingly more personal and sentimental than the first half; Larson focused more on the people of Galveston and the way they were dealing with the aftermath. It is one thing to hear about the storm and read numbers about how many died but the story takes on a new power when accounts of mothers trying to find lost children are told. Reliving the horrendous situations through eyewitness accounts allows people to realize the severity of the destruction on the city and the lives of the citizens; this compels people to take action to ensure that fewer lives will be lost in future disasters.

Issac’s Storm

September 25, 2016armando35

I had no idea what to expect from Issac’s Storm, I knew it was going to be more of a narrative as opposed to some other works we have read so that may have misled me into thinking it was going to be more fictitious but in reality its more factual with some narrative to help give the story some order. I think this type of historical writing is more appealing to readers because its more personal than a work that is purely factual and has no story telling to it. With this being said, works like this are more enticing to readers who may not be history majors but may be interested in learning more about the history of Galveston or the history of meteorology. I’ve rarely heard of historical writing of this style but I think it is an effective teaching tool because it allows you to learn facts, like how many people died or the number of buildings were destroyed, learn a small history on the study of meteorology( which i believe was helpful in understanding why Galveston suffered the fate it did), but it also gives some insight as to how the people reacted to the situation. As @slee72897 said in a previous post, “it was truly interesting to see how different people can react to the same event”. In the case of the hurricane there was an example when a wife named Louisa Rollfing realized how dangerous the storm was becoming and decided to suggest to her husband August that they should evacuate. August’s response was, “She was being such a woman. What was there to be afraid of? This was nothing special. Some wind,some water (Larson 153).” Whether August was being condescending because he really thought his wife was being irrational, or because he himself was really that stupid; I was surprised that any one who saw the city flooded past normal lines in addition to the mass evacuations could just think it was “nothing special”.

The Chicago

September 20, 2016armando35

I found Smith’s account of how the Chicago fire affected the city and surronding enviorment particularly intresting because he covered some, if not most, of the viewpoints people had in response to the fire. On the first page of The Imaginitive Dimensions of the Great Chicago Fire Smith says that many people belived the fire “reconfirmed Chicago’s transcedent purpose and special relationship with God and history (Biel.129)” given the fact that most of the Chicagoans were Christan and were ambitious about the cities future due to boostersim I can see why many people saw the fire as the work of God. The fire was seen as a thing that cleansed the city of impurities and gave them second chance to make the city better, it was also a warning for other cities to improve their cities (Biel 135). Smith makes his other point of how although Chicago had a promising future a lot of work had to be done until it could be the promising city people claimed it was destined to be. Most of the exapmles he used showed class tensions and how the fire may have even exacerbated the situation. I was suprised at the bias that arose through many of the different publications that came out after the fire occured and how even in times like these people could still be cold hearted. One example given by Smith recounts how people were more sympathetic towards the wealthy beacuse they suffered heavier losses; it goes even further when people claim that the fire wasn’t necessarily a bad thing because it vanquished some of the poorer neighborhoods (Biel 150). This piece reminded me of @daisysolorio’s post in which she mentioned when Pokin described how Thucydides and Herodotus gave accounts of the same Greek history but portrayed it in different ways. Simarlily, Smith complied different viewpoints from articles, books, and poems to show how people reacted to the fire. Both the works by Popkin and Smith show how bias and perception clearly have a way of shaping how an event is remebered.

Enviormental Strain for Societal Gain?

September 13, 2016armando35

“The city would not have gone up if it were not for the manipulation of the resources in the surrounding more rural areas (Ralrich25)” this quote that I pulled from last weeks posts eptiomizes what chapter 2 of what Natures Metropolis is about because in it Cronon talks about how the people of Chicago bruise and abuse the land to make it bend to their will. Given Chicago’s location, the people of the city tried to utilitize the lake as transportation but “nature met ecery scheme with more sand, and the harbor continued to be a problem long into the future (Cronon 56).” This sort of made me laugh, not because it was funny that thousands of dollars were wasted to build the harbor but because it seemed as if nature was trying to stop them from buidling the harbor by negating every move they did with more sand. After time the people realized the lakes and canals were cumbersome they turned to railroads; as I was reading this section I was amazed how just 31 miles of rail could turn into 2,500 in just a matter of years (Cronon 68). Prior to this reading I never reazlied how important of a city Chicago really was, I was blind to the fact that it was an important city in trade as well as in transportation. For example, Chicago was an important place in the devlopment in the railroad, although railroads may have started in other places most passed through Chicago. The map of the railroads on page 69 showed a spiderweb of tracks that crisscrossed the land; land that was prevously free of train tracks. In my opinion, these first two chapters have shown the growth of Chicago but have also explained the ways in which the enviorment was destroyed.

“Natural” Disasters

August 30, 2016August 30, 2016armando35

As I was reading American Disasters and “Disaster: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis” the way both addressed the issue of how disasters affected the human population caught my eye. In American Disasters Biel starts off with an anecdote of his experience with the “Titanic Live” which I think served as a good introduction into the meaning of what a disaster is and how it affects history. The sinking of the Titanic made history but the broadcasting of its wreckage “…redeemed history. Broadcast history also absorbed history. (Biel 3)” The broadcast gave new meaning to the disaster and made it relevant to the current time by the television to give people insight into what happened. Although many people see the sinking of the ship as a disaster it is not a natural thing; in “Disaster: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis” ” Theodore Steinberg maintains that the notion of ‘natural disaster’ is somewhat strained if not completely wrongheaded in ‘a society that has so thoroughly tampered with nature’ (Bergman para.6).” I think Steinberg is making a good point because an event such as the Titanic sinking can definitely be seen as disastrous but people who consider it a ‘natural disaster” are mistaken for the sole reason that it was an event that occurred unnaturally. Of course the event involves nature but nature was provoked in some way; in the case of the Titanic incident it was the Titanic itself which was man made and not designed by nature to be in the Atlantic ocean. To me it seems as if disasters are nature’s response to an alteration of the environment made by man whether it be a ship sinking, a flood, or a fire. That being said, there are some instances where disasters are slightly more natural than others. Regardless of how disaster are started the effect they have falls mostly on society which is altered, while nature recuperates slowly over time. For example, “Charles Rosenberg’s groundbreaking 1962 study of the great cholera epidemics of the nineteenth century presents disaster as a product of social and medical knowledge (Bergman para.7).”

Historical Thinking – Fall 2016

Author: armando35