slee72897 – Historical Thinking

History Event

November 30, 2016slee72897

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 the movie, The Lives of Others. This movie is based in communist East Berlin, and follows the story of a Stasi officer who is given permission to do 24/7 surveillance on famous playwright and his actress-girlfriend in order to see if they are actually loyal to the party. The officer, Weisler, in the beginning of the film is completely aligned to the party and it’s mission of getting rid of all who oppose it, having no sympathy for any individual’s emotions or situations. However, as Weisler observes the playwright and actress, he begins to feel sympathy for them and in a way becomes attached to them, even when he has never met them in person. He starts to hide certain information that would lead to evidence of the playwright’s betrayal of the party, but Weisler hides all evidence, despite threats from his commanders.

This was an extremely interesting film to watch, especially because I had never really studied in depth the conditions of East and West Berlin; I had only studied the events leading to the wall and the consequent fall of the wall and the fall of communism. Watching The Lives of Others really gave me a deeper look into the darkness and fear that ordinary people lived in. You never knew who was spying on you, who was telling the government about you, who even in your family would turn against you to save their own life. Because of the discussions we have had about communist theory in class, this movie made me think about the utopia that the ideal of communism supported. Yes, the idea behind socialism comes from good intention, to create equality and justice for those who are constantly exploited and marginalized in society; but communist governments of the past and present such as the Soviet Union, East Berlin, and North Korea have all shown signs of authoritarian dictatorships, in which the people have lost all their basic rights and freedoms. This film really opened my eyes to the dark reality that these people lived in, the constant fear and unknowing. It seems so abstract to us because thankfully, we do live in a nation in which our most basic rights are protected, but the rights we hold today came at a cost for millions in the past.

(But this movie has a happy ending and it’s great so I highly recommend watching!)

Smoke and Mirrors

October 23, 2016slee72897

Steinberg’s article provides new insight into how victims reacted to the San Francisco earthquake and fire. One of his major arguments is that businessmen downplayed the destruction caused by the earthquake in order to save their businesses from losing interest from possible future investors. Instead, they argued that the fire was the greatest cause of destruction, with the San Francisco Real Estate Board agreeing to refer to the disaster as “‘the great fire,’ and not as ‘the great earthquake'” (Steinberg 109). I agree with ngojoseph’s claim that “they aren’t wrong for wanting to protect their assets but it’s dangerous to deny that an area isn’t more prone to disasters if the history of that area says so otherwise” (Earthquakes in California: Yet People Still Choose to Live Here). It’s completely natural that the survivors would want to be secure, but what’s the point of securing their assets if there is a possibility that avoiding the real problem would just leave room for even greater disaster in the future? They were too focused on the present-day issues, not thinking ahead of the potential they had to rebuild their city, stronger than it was before. There was already proof that they were living in an area prone to earthquakes, but they still ignored these warnings due to fear of losing their assets.

Ngojoseph also brings up another great point, asking the question of why people still continue to risk their lives and live in disaster-prone areas, such as California. I think that there is definitely a part in our lives that downplay the destructive power of natural disasters, thinking of historical proof such as the San Francisco earthquake as something of the past, something far away and distant from us. And in that sense, we are being extremely foolish for thinking that disaster isn’t something that would affect us, because the victims of the San Francisco earthquake probably had been assuming the same thing. However, I think we are justified in choosing to live here because there have been many regulations and precautions taken to prevent damage. There are specific regulations and tests that constructions need to pass in order to build. There are earthquake, fire, and other disaster drills several times a year in schools to educate Californians in earthquake safety. I believe that even though we downplay the potential destruction of earthquakes, we try to be as prepared as possible because of the disasters of the past.

Marx’s Communism

October 18, 2016October 18, 2016slee72897

After reading the Communist Manifesto and reading through my classmates’ posts, I can see that many of us have come to similar conclusions about Marxism and his communist theory. @erodriguez317 puts it very well as a theory that advocated for ” a harmonious way of living where it was fair for everyone to live well and not have poor people mistreated by the rich” (The Father of Marxism). Marx saw the problems that societies faced as a result of changing economic structures, and the conflicts that arose between the laboring proletariat and the bourgeois. For example, as we also discussed in class, drastic economic shifts such as the shift to industrialization led to huge conflicts between classes as the richer, managerial class began to exploit the laboring class. His idea of a classless society was to put all people on equal ground and make sure that the rich would not be able to manipulate and exploit the weak and the poor. In theory and on paper, this all sounds fine and dandy, but in real life the greed and power-hungriness of individuals makes this theory impossible to be carried out, as is written in books like Animal Farm and The Giver. In my opinion, there will always be people who, even in a “classless” and “equal” society, who hunger for power and more political control. There will also always be a need for a leader in any group of people to maintain order and resolve issues; however, according to this theory, having a leader goes against the idea that all people are on an equal ground.

As a historical figure, Marx is an extremely significant subject of study, introducing a theory that is now a relevant topic of study in the fields of economics, history, government, philosophy, and so many more. His theory has served as the fundamental basis for many governments, such as the ones in Russia, China, North Korea and Vietnam, and for people who truly believed that this ideal economic policy would be feasible for humans to live out. As a historian, however, I believe he lacks historical analysis and a wide variety of perspectives, even though he gave critical insight into the condition of his times.

October 16, 2016slee72897

The study of history began to change drastically in the 19th century, as history became a sophisticated academic discipline. Popkin writes about “historicism”, or the way of understanding the world through examining each society and era’s “unique individuality”(Popkin 69). This method of studying history is the one that I truly have learned to appreciate. Historicism really allows people to understand more about themselves and their own histories as a part of a specific people group. The post-revolution French were expected to identify themselves as a nation, but would they be able to understand what it truly means to be French without understanding how their nation’s history and how they came to proudly be called “French”? For example, how would Americans be able to take pride in our “free country” without understanding how exactly our founding fathers had fought for that freedom that we so proudly boast of today? Popkin quotes Edmund Burke’s definition of the nation as “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are dead, and those who are to be born”(Popkin 73). A nation and its’ people’s identity does not start from the present, it starts with roots that have been sown in from decades, even centuries, past. Armando35 points out that history had excluded certain groups of people, such as women, and that this exclusion gives a “slanted perspective” of what actually occurred in history, taking away from its accuracy and authenticity. This point is very accurate, considering that all peoples deserve to know their unique, individual history. If their part history is blotted out, that will only lead to a very apparent gap in understanding the way these people have served to form the unique history of the society or era that they have partaken in.

Another look into the importance of perspective

October 2, 2016slee72897

As Craig Offman argues in his article, “A tempest around ‘Isaac’s Storm'”, Erik Larson’s Isaac’s Storm is not the most historically accurate novel to depict the events of the hurricane that hit Galveston, Texas in 1900. Although it is based on a real event, centering around real statistics and even real people, Offman points out that the aspect that Larson decides to play with is the interaction and relationship between the central characters. Whether or not Joseph and Isaac Cline were on bad terms, we will never be able to fully know. Larson confidently insists that his depiction of the brothers’ conflict was “dead on”, giving his side of the argument to combat Fincher’s argument that Larson had “overdramatized their relationship”. Although Larson says he did not purposely bend the truth, it can be assumed that the way in which he perceived the truth was very different than others. In analyzing sources, it is important to always consider how the author has understood the original, primary sources and how the author has decided to convey his or her perspectives into writing. As we have discussed many times in class, Larson’s perpective of the brothers’ relationship compared to Fincher and Offman’s does not discredit his reliability, as long as his claims are based on accurate, primary sources, and he is able to competently argue his argument. I was reminded once again as I was reading joshuadw88’s response, how important it is for us, as historians, to look at primary sources carefully in order to detect the bias or even inaccuracy in the writer’s intent (Trying to Reflect Reality). Whichever career path we have chosen, it is always important to look at sources with a critical eye to open our perspectives and form our own unique arguments and opinions. Personally, as an aspiring teacher of history, I need to be able to present multiple perspectives to my students, to help them understand this importance of perspective. Without perspective, history would be so flat and meaningless without opposing arguments and unique analyses… Without perspective, would history even be a field of study?

Pride vs humility

September 27, 2016slee72897

I think one of the most poignant characteristics that is portrayed in these accounts is pride. The weather forecasters in Washington refused to believe the storm warnings from Cuba because of their excessive pride and superiority. If they had even once considered that there might have been at least a little truth in their claims and had made further investigations, who knows if the people of Galvesston may have evacuated to safety? If Dr. Young had not been so comfortable in the midst of the chaos, maybe he would have survived. If Isaac had not been so preoccupied with the competition against his brother Joseph, maybe he would have been able to carefully investigate and accurately predict the course of the storm, saving many lives, including the life of his wife. If the entire town of Galveston had not been so prideful of their own success, maybe they would have taken previous precautions and damage would not have been as significant. The overt pride that is seen in these multiple cases is the same pride of the Chicagoans before the fire destroyed their city. They thought that they would be impenetrable, indestructible, thus indicating the “unpreparedness that comes from human nature” that derekjahwu wrote about in his blog post.
However, I think that this characteristic of pride before the storm hits is juxtaposed with humility and desperation during and after the hurricane. This is seen first when multiple families, even “an unidentified black man and his wife” gathered at Judson Palmer’s house for safety (84). The idea of safety and refuge and a possibility of saving their lives brought all these people together. They were not afraid to ask for help, regardless of their age or race, because they knew that they all had the same desire to live. The pride and competition between Joseph and Isaac is also juxtaposed with sudden compassion when they meet during the storm, and Joseph recounts that his “heart suddenly leaped with uncontrollable joy” (218). They may have spent their entire lives fighting and competing for favor, but Larson conveys the idea that people ultimately cling on to what is most important to them in times of chaos. People hold on to what is familiar, what they long to keep and remember.

Faith and Doubt

September 20, 2016slee72897

It is truly interesting to see how differently people can react to the same event. Some considered the fire as punishment from God as a reminder for the people of Chicago to restore its holiness, as well as serving as a warning for its neighboring cities. The fire was a gift that God was giving them to start over, to be “a spiritually reborn chosen people who had a covenant with God” (135). Not all agreed with this idea, but Smith summarizes by claiming that Chicago after the fire “was a community of valiant citizens who in this worst of times discovered the best in themselves” (136). The people were optimistic about the future that was to come, the city they were given a chance to rebuild to even greater greatness than that of before. However, in the midst of the optimism and cheer that was spreading through Chicago, there was another side of Chicago that was marked with the negativity. As in times of disaster, the good may be really good, but it doesn’t eliminate the bad that is always happening. Smith retells the accounts of household goods being stolen by trusted servants, once-sober men now guzzling “like veteran soakers” (151). These two opposing reactions to the fire are what most likely is refered to in the title of this section, “Faith and Doubt”. One side turned to their faith in God, believing that He would provide for them given that they repent and restore their holiness. The faithful vow to rebuild the city to its great potential to live even better lives than they had before, putting their faith in God. However, those who do not have faith are doubtful, and turn to “unholy” acts such as stealing and drinking, because they are doubtful that their futures will hold anything of worth.
This reminded me of the argument of “natural vs. unnatural”, not about the environment and how humans impact nature, but the how humans respond to these natural or unnatural events. Ramsescastillo03 wrote about one of the historians first encounter with the city, one fearing the unnatural and man-made aspect of the city to loving the city “for what it is and the full potential it has”. Likewise, those with faith are looking forward to the full potential that Chicago has in rebuilding, and those with doubt are stuck in fear.

The Contrast of Urban and Rural Life

September 11, 2016slee72897

The contrast of the urban and the rural life presented in the prologue was very interesting to me. Cronon writes that he wouldn’t have had such a passion for his rural life, had he not hated Chicago so much. This also feeds into his argument that we need to study the history of Chicago in context to its’ geography, because the study of history is not a study of separate, disconnected events. There are connections between events, and understanding the growth and urbanization of Chicago is made easier when we see the progression of the surrounding areas of the MidWest, and how they interact with one another. This idea is also reflected when @ploopy1 wrote, “I never looked at how important the rural countryside played in the development of the industrious city side”. As we study the history of Chicago in relation to its surroundings and all the sacrifices that have been made, it makes me appreciate the state that Chicago is in now, how developed and prosperous it is.
I also found that the idea of the “cloud over Chicago” was very interesting. That cloud visually represents the smog that hovers over the city as a result of its industrial pollution, but also represents the feeling of eminent gloom that those like Cronon, who do not like the city, feel when approaching. I myself am more in favor of less urbanized places, and I very much understand this feeling of gloom and dread whenever I near Los Angeles. However, just as it is helpful to study the history of Chicago in context to its rural surroundings, it is helpful to study and appreciate the rural history in context of nearby cities.

“Good history is interesting”

September 6, 2016slee72897

When I previously would think about historiography, I would imagine a group of sunlight-deprived historians debating eagerly about the most boring topics ever known to mankind. Yes, I always loved history, but I was more enamored by the story-like quality than the analysis of it. However, after reading the preface and first chapter of From Herodotu to H-Net: The Study of Historiography by Jeremy D. Popkin, I have the slight understanding that I was largely mistaken about my preconceived notions about historiography. Popkin goes straight in to the definition of historiography and the necessity of this study to understand the past deeper and more insightfully. He also says that historiography challenged “historians to look at the past from new angles” because “historiographical disagreements help keep the discipline alive” (Popkin 8). This was probably the most eye-opening sentence for me in this chapter. History isn’t dead. Yes, it may be a study of the events of the past, but these events are studied in the context of the present. The state of the present is constantly changing, with new perspectives, angles, biases to analyze past events. These ever-changes present times also allows historians to present their work in a way that is more readily available to the public. Traditionally, historical reasearch was published in books and scholarly articles, modes that the average person wouldn’t be able to understand. However, nowadays historical research is being presented in “museum exibitions, films, websites, historical theme parks, and even historically based video games” (Popkin 11). The reason I want to be a history teacher is to present history to students in a way that is engaging and fun. It would disappoint me so much whenever my peers would complain that history is “useless” and “boring”. History is so relevant and useful to the way humans live now, and “good history is interesting” (Popkin 18).

Historical Thinking – Fall 2016

Author: slee72897