mvanderdussen – Historical Thinking

History Event

November 16, 2016mvanderdussen

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

For my history event I watched a documentary on Winston Churchill, called Churchill’s First World War. This documentary gave an overview of Churchill’s life and actions during the First World War. This documentary attracted me because even though I knew that Churchill had a role in World War One, I had never looked into it at all. This documentary examined Churchill’s life during this time by comparing well known events about his life, to a series of letters that he and his wife Clementine wrote to each other. Clementine was an extremely vital part to Churchill gaining back some of the power he had lost. She was like his eyes and ears in politics while he was gone fighting on the western front.

Churchill started as the head of the Navy, but after a failed operation to take Constantinople, he was relieved of his post and ended up serving in the trenches in France. Eventually making his way back to London and gaining another important position, being in charge of developing and improving new technologies such as tanks.

Although this documentary seems like a success story, it was pointed out that in a way it was a failure for Churchill. Churchill had this view because he had started the war with a more powerful position than the one he finished the war in.

As a history major, I found myself doing a search on each person who they had speak as an expert on a topic. Examining their credentials, and figuring out if they actually knew what they were talking about or not. I was also able to place this into a larger historical context, expanding my understanding of World War One. Had I watched this film not as a history major, I would not have paid any attention as to the credentials of the experts that spoke on the film.

Titanic

November 1, 2016mvanderdussen

Well it turns out that the Titanic was an actual disaster in which a large ship sunk and many people died. It is not just an incredibly long and boring movie in which Leonardo DiCaprio stars. In the chapter “Unknown and Unsung” Biel talks about the impact that the sinking of the Titanic had on women and African Americans. This brought up some interesting points of view and some interesting topics in which I had not thought of before reading this chapter.

One of the parts of the chapter I found particularly interesting is the striking differences of the “law of the sea”, and how men (surely if was the same men often) acted on land. Basically the “law of the sea” meant that the captain of a ship would make every effort to save the lives of all the other people on the ship or boat before he would attempt to save his own. This was a striking contrast from how the “captains” or the business owners acted during this time period. With business owners on land putting themselves before their employees. Making sure they were able to accumulate much capital and wealth while forcing their employees to work in a dangerous and hostile work environment (Biel pg 311). I had always know about these two separate things, but had never put them together to realize the stark contrast between them.

Despite the fact that many people died, the “narrative of the disaster is characterized by accounts of heroism and sacrifice.” This passage is from a post from rhruska. I had always known that many people died, but it had always been overlooked by tales of heroism of people saving others lives. This chapter brought some other perspectives to my point of view.

When all else fails, just shoot at it.

October 4, 2016mvanderdussen

This chapter was very interesting to me. It was a great example of the people of Galveston coming together, deciding that protecting the city against another hurricane was important, and getting it done. I found it interesting how as armando35 mentions the citizens were willing to change their goverment. Related to that, one part of the chapter I found particularly interesting is the part on how the Deep Water Committee (DWC) did not have most of its members elected by the people, but appointed. The fact that many Galvestonians were okay with relinquishing their right to elect people to this committee is surprising (Bixel pg. 230). I know that if the city I lived in was going to have to undergo massive rebuilding such as Galveston did, I would want to be able to elect people who I think would do a good job, afterall, this is America. However, maybe the Galvestonians were correct in doing this. It seemed like this committee was fairly efficient in making the proper changes to Galveston in order to improve its defenses against another hurricane. This could possibly be because the people who were appointed to the committee were hand chosen and worked well together, which may not have happened had they been elected. It is interesting how they were willing to give up some of their rights in order to make their city safe quicker.

Lastly, I found the part on the top of page 228 that mentions how a Frenchman suggested he install artillery pieces at the city and simply fire upon a storm that approaches the island and cripple it. As someone who loves guns, I thought that was pretty funny. If all else fails, just shoot at it right?

Haters Gunna Hate

October 2, 2016mvanderdussen

As the article argues, Isaac’s Storm ruffled some feathers with people because of some of the aspects of his book might have been a little historically accurate. Offman wrote that Fincher, a meteorologist, argues that Larson was trying to turn Cline into a scapegoat. I personally do not think that this was Larson’s intention. I do agree with Fincher that cline honestly did what he thought was best, (just like Larson said he did when gathering the facts for the book) but I do not think that he was attempting to turn Cline into a scapegoat. I believe that Cline was simply the best person to take the position of the main character of the book.

One part of the article I did find particularly intersecting is when Larson is quoting saying that “he assumed it was common knowledge” when referring to the divide between Isaac and Joseph after the storm (Offman). This assumption indicates to me that he may not have done as much research on this topic as he could have on this particular aspect of the book. Especially after Fincher pointed out another book mentioned the two brothers speaking highly of each other shortly after the storm took place.

Honestly, I think that Larson did bend the truth in a few places, but it was to help add readability to the book and I do not think that his style of writing is unconventional like rhruska says. Maybe I am biased because this book was a nice change of pace from some of the dense articles we have to read, but I appreciate the fact that he chose to make the book enjoyable and although it does have flaws, what doesn’t have a flaw?

A Bit Exaggerated

September 27, 2016September 27, 2016mvanderdussen

Like armando35 I also believe that Larson’s style of writing is an “effective way to tell the story of the flood”. However, Larson’s style of writing has both pros and cons. First, the style in which he writes makes the book fairly easy and enjoyable to read. Obviously I did not enjoy reading about the deaths of so many men women and children, but the way he writes makes it so it is bearable. He tells the stories of people first, then gives the actual numbers later. I found this effective because after reading about the stories and was very curious as to the actual logistics of the destruction. There were times that Larson would jump around chronologically which was a little disorienting at times, however I do believe it was an effective way of organizing the book.

Undoubtedly to aid in making this book enjoyable to read, there were some truths exaggerated such as the hilt of the sword we mentioned in class. However, one part I found particularly interesting was the story of Ruby Credo from page 206 to 209. Credo recalls of how he was able to regather his family after they had been separated while being carried away in the water. On page 207 Larson mentions in the book that “all this occurred in darkness” making this feat very impressive. I am not sure if Larson mentions this to cast doubt upon the story or showcase the heroic action of Credo. Due to how the situation was described in the book the fact that Credo was able to do that seems impossible and makes me think that this story was greatly exaggerated whether in the book or when it was originally recorded.

I want my city to burn!

September 20, 2016mvanderdussen

Okay, I do not want the city I live in to burn down like Chicago did. However, the beginning of this chapter had me feeling that way. The first part of this chapter talks about how the fire was an opportunity for the people of Chicago and the United States as a whole to come together and unite as one. With stories of heroism talk about how the fire improved the character of people, burning “away vain essentials to reveal the sound and solid integrity of the people” (Smith, 137), the fire seemed like it was not a disaster at all, and in fact a positive event. However, despite the fact that the fire did enable the city to come together to rebuild and improve, it was far from a good thing, after all, many people lost their lives and about a third of the city was destroyed.

This disaster gave criminals a fantastic opportunity to take advantage of people who had been displaced from their homes. This disaster brought out the best in some, but “more disturbing perhaps was how the fire brought out the worst in supposedly good people” (Smith, 151). People of all ages and sexes took part in criminal practices such as looting abandoned buildings, some even resorted to murder.

This chapter started with the good and ended with the bad. It seems like most writings do the opposite. However, despite that fact, I believe that when writing about a disaster such as this, it is the right way to do so. When reading about a disaster one should not come away with a good feeling. Yes, there were some positives in the disaster, I believe it is human nature to find at least some good out of almost anything, but I think it is good that Smith ends with talking about the negative aspects of the fire, because after all, as ramsescastillo03 proves with this by writing that the fire had, “people running for their lives creating “havoc” in the burning streets and while others were crushed under buildings or looting most of the empty shops” it was a negative event.

From Eusebius to the Chicago Fire

September 18, 2016September 18, 2016mvanderdussen

One of the concepts in the reading that I found interesting this week was how “the developement of history has looked different to historians, depending on the concerns of their own day” (Popkin, 25). Knowing what the major concerns of historians were during a certain time period can possibly be extremely important while researching. By knowing what these concerns are, it can help the reader to decipher any biases that the author may have had. For example, if someone was studying the works of Eusebius, it is important to know that his main “purpose of history was to show the working out of God’s plan for humanity” and that he was also trying to prove that the “Jewish tradition was older and therefore more reliable than that of the Greeks” (Popkin 37-38). Knowing this about the author would help the researcher to better understand the meanings behind his writings, and also be able to critique them better. This was particularly interesting to me because I attended a christian school from kindergarten all the way thru high school.

I really liked @derekjahwu’s comment on how people react to fire the exact same way today as they did at first during the Chicago fire. Another part I found interesting in the Helmer article was how the people seemed so comfortable with fire. At first people were going to watch the fire until they realized that it was completely out of control. This indicates that the people were comfortable with fire and that it was a fairly common occurrence. Lastly, I thought it was interesting how buildings that were described as “fireproof” were obliterated by the fire (Helmer). Obviously science has advanced much since then, but it makes me wonder how many of our disaster proof buildings and preventative measures are actually as good as they say they are. For example, are our earthquake proof buildings in southern California really earthquake proof?

Chapter 2: Refreshingly Geographical

September 13, 2016mvanderdussen

Being a Geography major and a History minor, this weeks reading was much easier and enjoyable to read than my last post on Historiography. Von Thunen’s model is one of the subjects that I have studied in my geography classes so it was interesting to see that come up in a History reading.

The part of this article that I found most interesting was on page 62 when Cronon writes, that the “natural avenues of transportation might play important roles in shaping a city’s future, but the preexisting structures of the human economy-second nature, not first nature-determined which routes and which cities developed most quickly”. I found this particularly interesting becausse yes, Chicago was in a great geographical position to become a big and important city (first nature). However, the second nature set the stage for the first nature of the area to really let the city flourish. Had people not stepped in and dredged the harbor to make it more inviting for larger ships, as well as raise the city to help deal with the poor drainage, it would not have been able to take full advantage of the benefits of its geographical location (Cronan, pg. 58).

This dedication to making Chicago, did not stop here, it continued with the development of the railroad. Being able to anticipate the benefits of the railroad, many Chicago businessmen were fully supportive of the railroad and pushed hard for the railroad to come through Chicago. Led by William B. Ogden, these men were able to make Chicago the center of railroad transportation in this area (Cronon pg 65-66).

The relationship between the geographical advantages of the Chicago area, and the push to take advantage of them by humans is a very interesting one. By observing and studying this relationship we can gain a very good understanding of the city itself.

Historiography, complicated, yet important.

September 6, 2016mvanderdussen

Popkin defines historiography “as the critical assessment of the ways in which historians try to reconstruct past events as distinguished from the statements they make about the past” (pg. 3). It is a very complex and complicated field of study that is not easy to understand at first. Popkin argues that this complexity comes from the fact that history is not simple because “history refers both to events that took place in the past and to the accounts we give them” (Popkin, pg. 4). Due to the fact that there can be multiple works of writing dealing with the same time period or event that contain different material, we need a way to help understand why there are differences in them. This is where historiography comes into play. Historiography helps to understand the different ways hisotrians interpreted the past to try to understand or gain a knowledge of a universal truth about the past. (Popkin, pg. 4).

I share the same feeling of historiography giving me a weird taste of history as Joseph Ngo does. I love history for the great tales of the past. I enjoy the history books that Popkin says are “written for a popular audience” these books focus on “spectacular events and big personalities” (Popkin pg. 5). So it is a little frustrating being presented with this field of history. However, studying historiography gives people a better understanding of history itself, and allows people to become better historians themselves, therefore, is important.

Historiography forces “historians to look at the past from new angles” by viewing these new angles, this creates conflict between historians, however, Popkin argues that these “disagreements help keep the discipline alive” (pg. 8).

Although this concept seems a little awkward, it is very important because it allows historians to gain a better understanding of history, and helps continue to encourage historical research and debate, helping to maintain the discipline as a whole.

Historical Thinking – Fall 2016

Author: mvanderdussen