See the new Reading Assignments Page for the information that was posted when Digress.It worked.
Weekly Reading Assignments
Leave a comment ?
265 Comments.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
See the new Reading Assignments Page for the information that was posted when Digress.It worked.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What are the main points that Arnold is trying to make? What, according to him, is history?
Do Not Post Here! Select the comment number that corresponds to the assignment!
Not to post about on this one!
I think that Arnold tries to make the point that history is not the same as past events, nor of simply retelling past events. Instead, history exists within a complex world of different places, times, motivations and ways of thinking. As such, history is the combination of past events, information available about said events, and the motivations, purposes, interpretations, and worldview of any given person who writes a story of history. History thus depends and varies according to its context and surroundings.
Arnold furthermore states that history is an argument. Although all history should be based on evidence found in source material (another topic that he covers extensively), the interpretation of this evidence cannot be absolute in time nor place. Multiple views of any part of history is therefore desirable.
The different views that can be taken, and different interpretations that are embraced, can be seen in the varied approaches and angles that historians take to a subject. Arnold identifies some of the key ones, and explains how and why the different approaches matter.
Finally, Arnold wants to make the point that history matters, for more reasons than one. But also simply for the sake of enjoyment.
Arnold explains that writing history is a process that involves placing an event or “true story” in a context that can be understood by his or her contemporary audience. The process should convey the story as it was experienced by the participants and demonstrate how the event effected other events. The interpretation of the event by the historian is “history.” The “history” should allow the reader to experience what it was like to be a part of the past event and to understand why it occured.
As I read Arnold, I realized that he was trying to show the reader that history is often objective. A person who narrators a historical event writes about it based on what they believe is important and how they perceive the facts or their understanding of them. Furthermore, history requires detective work, looking through documents and archives is a necessity to gain knowledge of the event. Once the information is attained it is up to that person to explain history based on their findings and their opinions of how the event(s) took place. History therefore is objective to the narrator’s perception.
Brundage’s observes that one of the ways we can surmise the specific subject of a book is by noting its subtitle. This also applies to his own book. The subtitle “A Guide to Historical Research and Writing” sums up what it is. Of course, as grad students we already are familiar with much of its contents; however, it is always good to be reminded of what we have learned in the past. It has perhaps been years since we have learned some of the basic principles of historical research and writing, and the specific preferences of some professors (not always in accordance to the principles) cause us to forget what we have learned. Nevertheless, Brundage’s book serves as more than a reminder of correct writing procedures. I personally found chapter three particularly useful and will revisit it often. I started my college career six years ago at a small school with out-of-date research tools. Already at a disadvantage, I made the mistake of not paying attention when a librarian gave me and the rest of the freshman Composition students a tutorial of research databases the school had to offer. When I actually became serious about my education and transferred to a much better and up-to-date school, I had no idea how to use the copious research resources at my disposal. Luckily, I was able to build my many papers’ bibliographies using little more than OhioLink, Academic Search Complete, and Google. Brundage has introduced me to what I need to find sources for our historiographical essay this semester and our 695 paper in the spring. It was also wise of Brundage to re-reference the research skills he lists in the chapter three while discussing the process of writing a research paper in chapter six. I was also thrilled to see Brundage included an example of a historiographical essay in his book! This will also be very helpful this semester’s paper.
Brundage’s observes that one of the ways we can surmise the specific subject of a book is by noting its subtitle. This also applies to his own book. The subtitle “A Guide to Historical Research and Writing” sums up what it is. Of course, as grad students we already are familiar with much of its contents; however, it is always good to be reminded of what we have learned in the past. It has perhaps been years since we have learned some of the basic principles of historical research and writing, and the specific preferences of some professors (not always in accordance to the principles) cause us to forget what we have learned. Nevertheless, Brundage’s book serves as more than a reminder of correct writing procedures. I personally found chapter three particularly useful and will revisit it often. I started my college career six years ago at a small school with out-of-date research tools. Already at a disadvantage, I made the mistake of not paying attention when a librarian gave me and the rest of the freshman Composition students a tutorial of research databases the school had to offer. When I actually became serious about my education and transferred to a much better and up-to-date school, I had no idea how to use the copious research resources at my disposal. Luckily, I was able to build my many papers’ bibliographies using little more than OhioLink, Academic Search Complete, and Google. Brundage has introduced me to what I need to find sources for our historiographical essay this semester and our 695 paper in the spring. It was also wise of Brundage to re-reference the research skills he lists in the chapter three while discussing the process of writing a research paper in chapter six. I was also thrilled to see Brundage included an example of a historiographical essay in his book! This will also be very helpful this semester’s paper.
I believe that the contents of Arnold’s book supports two main points: a lot of how and why the history writing has changed over the centuries is due to the changing interests of both those who write history and those who pass judgement upon it; past history writings can also serve as a reflection of the time in which they were written.
As Hawk mentioned, Arnold states that History is an argument. I find this to be a wise observation. We should not believe that once a history is written, it is set in stone and unable to be re-addressed or changed, or that our views on a particular history are the only correct ones. If we are not open to listening to criticisms of what has been written, we loose the chance to be introduced to different (perhaps more accurate) perspectives on the past. However, my praise of Arnold’s belief that history is an argument may be biased. I personally approach the study of history as Socrates would: by assuming that “. . . all I know is that I know nothing.”
Click here add a new comment…
In the introduction of “Going to the Sources” Anthony Brundage emphasized his intention–as both a teacher and as a historian–to develop in others a “sense of the excitement of history.” Brundage stressed also, as did John Arnold in “History,” that the study and the concept of history was neither static nor a fixed story of the past but was rather dynamic and indeed a process continuously in need of revision. And also similiar to Arnold’s “History,” Brundage’s “Going to the Sources” emphasized throughout the necessity of examing all sources objectively–or sceptically–and with critical scrutinity. Although certain sections of “Going to the Sources” seemed to accentuate the obvious, Brundage’s concise instructions, his inclusion of relevant examples, and his “sense of the excitement of history,” serve ultimately to make this book an accessible and a helpful guide.
I completely agree with khaas7′s comparison of the Arnold and Brundage readings, specifically how they define history as a dynamic and continuous process throughout their books. However, I found Brundage to be quite different as well. Anderson effectively explains historiography through the use of historical anecdotes, but focuses more on theories and principles of studying history. Brundage does explain historiagraphy, but does so with less emphasis on anecdotes. Brundage’s book serves as less of an introduction to what historiography is, and more as a very brief yet specific ‘how-to’ guide to for studing history. For example, Arnold uses the anecdote of Sojourner Truth to make points on how to decipher truth from varying sources, and Brundige explains that notetaking on notecards is better that on a notebook or a computer because it is helpful for creating a finding aid when it comes to the writing process.
Brundage explains that revisionism is a broad interpretation of past events, processes, or people. He shows how methology for revisionist writing has evolved over the past two centuries in order to interpret “the dramatic transformations in social, economic, and politcal life”(3). He explains how “new forms of historical conciousness” have developed in response to changing social, economic, and political conditions, and the need for new methods on interpretting those changes.
He explains how to use differant approaches to historical writing for historiographic and research papers, as well as how to locate and utilize source material for them.
I thought that his specific definition of revisionism was helpful: “[w]hen an interpretation entails a more sweeping challenge to an established way of interpreting a past event, process, or person, we call it revisionism”. (3) This helps to highlight the long history of revisionism, and thus emphasizes the dynamic nature of history itself.
The Brundage book provided a great deal of insight into how to effectively construct history without much fanfare. In particular, the section that offered an example of a historiographical essay was helpful because it allowed me to mentally manufacture a provisional approach for my own project. The heavy emphasis upon how history is not a static field was a bit redundant, but clearly the author was attempting to inspire young historians to embrace their craft. The first chapter which outlined many of the modern strands of historical study aided his argument that there is still much to learn about our well-studied past. This message was very much in line with Arnold’s book. The nuts and bolts suggestions within Brundage’s book could serve as a useful tool down the road and his inclusion of a quick reference guide in the back makes it something that would be a welcome addition to a novice historian’s desk. Overall, I feel that writing these types of books is an unenviable task due to the limits placed on the author, but Brundage managed to weave together a useful book that was not overly entertaining and stuck to a concise structure.
I was intrigued by the reference to “How to Read a Book” by Mortimer Adler, which I had not previously encountered. Has anyone read it? If so, what are your thoughts on its value beyond the brief summary that Brundage provided?
To me, Brundage’s book is mostly about giving the readers information about how to understand historiography, how do do historiographical work, and how to do source research. This naturally includes giving examples of, and explaining various ways to approach history, and how to understand and write about these.
The section dealing with research and sources contains a lot of information that I’m sure I will revisit a lot during my different projects. The many references to specific research sites can easily prove to be a great convenience.
Like hfearing, I found chapter three to be especially helpful. This because I have previously had a rather limited understanding of what a historiographical paper is. The example included by the author, combined with the information given, helped a lot.
Arnold’s book was more concerend with defining Histiograpgy, while Brundage is about how to write histiograpghy. Some graduate students might find that Brundage states the obvious, however the basics he covers such as chpater 3: Finding Your Sources can assist students of all levels. In all honesty, I forgot about how effective bibliograpghies and indexes can be in finding sources. For my paper I will be using these with more frequency.
Brundage’s book seems to be an extremely useful resource for historians. The author, who designed this book with a methods course he teaches, is clear and concise. Brundage has developed a book that can easily be referenced for guidance. I agree with hfearing that the real value of this work is in refreshing a history student’s memory to proper procedures and techniques. It had been several years since my last historical methods course, and I am very glad to have this book as a reference now. This is definitely a book that I will keep in a prominent place on my bookshelf. Also, like hfearing and others, I was glad to see an example of a historiography. Like many others who have already commented, I find this very useful in guidance for my historiographical paper.
As a history teacher, I found this to be an extremely useful resource, especially due to Brundage’s enthusiasm. I definitely plan to incorporate things I have learned, or relearned, in this book into my own instruction when I return to the classroom. Also, the enthusiasm for the subject portrayed by Brundage helped to clarify many of my own interests in history, and will be helpful in conveying this enthusiasm, and hopefully inciting it, in my own students. In fact, due to the clarity and readability of this book, I would even consider a classroom set. This book would be invaluable for guiding upper level history students in writing high quality research papers. Often, the most difficult thing for high school students to grasp is proper research and evaluating sources. While the book is, as stated by the author, written for college history students, much of it is very useful at the high school level as well. Chapter 6 seems like it would be particularly useful, both as a professional guiding students in research papers, and as a student this coming spring. This book is so full of handy tools such as the appendices, for help in citation format and databases. Finding relevant and reliable sources is vital, and there are several databases listed that I did not know about previously. I wonder how many of my fellow students who are also in education plan to incorporate this book into their instruction.
One thing I found interesting about Arnold was when I compared the sources he used when examining the murder and Mr. Brudette. In case of the murder, he only used the excerpts of the Inquisition process of being interviewed. In Mr. Burdtte’s case he uses local government sources, a personal diary and port records to establish theories of why his wife had to ask for funding support. I think Arnold does this to show the transition of sources that the historian can use. It makes me wonder if histroians in the presnent and future will view digital sources/media in the same way?
Brundage breaks down various approaches to historiography and how these can be used to interperate the existing literature and help to focus new scholarship. He further develops this through stratagies for reading historical works and how to quciky ascertain the approach and arguments of a historian. Brundage writes that by using information about an author, a careful reading on intrductions and subtitles, and an examination of chapter titles a historian can select works that can be useful for historigpaphic essyas or as secndary sources in an authors original research.
“Going to the Sources” is a great review of the skills one needs in order to be an effective historian. I thought the first chapter was especially insightful. Brundage described history as a process and emphasized the importance of revisionism. I noticed many similarities to Arnold’s ideas about history existing as a process. There are many ways to approach a historical topic, as outlined in the first chapter, which is an important fact to keep in mind. Brundage also outlines the ways in which to find and choose sources, which will be helpful in the coming weeks as we research our paper topics. The chapter on how to write a historiographic essay will also prove to be a helpful guide.
I attended (along with a few of our classmates) the panel given by John Stauffer of Harvard,”African Americans and the Meaning of Emancipation in Ohio.” This was very interesting! I am glad it included so many photographs I had never before seen. He connected the use of images that circulated in popular periodicals to events and public sentiments contemporary to their release. While I won’t talk anymore about this as I believe we will discuss this in class tomorrow, I would like to point out how nice he was. It was so great when he became excited over seeing a picture of Lucy Bagby Johnson that the adorable Adena gave him.
I thought he was extremely interesting. His use of images and discussion of photography was an added bonus.
Having been on the other side of a class, I have definitely come to appreciate the importance of good visual aids in presentations. I also found Stauffer’s presentation immensely interesting, although I did hear from a few afterwards whose opinion was not as glowing. The only complaint I had was that when he was addressing questions afterwards, he had a tendency to turn away from the audience and I strained to hear his responses. Regardless, I am looking forward to discussing it tomorrow. Also, those of you that missed the walking tour of Civil War Cleveland missed out. Especially as it pertains to Lucy Bagby Johnson. Good job!
I won’t lie, Iggers is not the most fun thing to read so far. However, I do like how the authors are trying to take a different approach to historiography. Also, the sections on India, and East and South East Asia were interesting. I have never really read anything about Asian history before. Although, they were hard to get through. I don’t know about anyone else, but whenever I encounter the names of dynasties or other terms, they are so unfamiliar that my mind just clamps shut. I hope that doesn’t make me just another “stupid American.”
Iggers’ introduction was the hardest part to read, almost painful. I did find the chapter itself much easier to read, and actually enjoyed it. I agree the names of dynasties can be confusing, but luckily I pulled from my prior classes on Asia and and the Mid East.
I definitely agree that reading Iggers was rough. Of course, I even had to read the title a few times to wrap my mind around it. Having said that, I also found it to be worth the effort. Looking at historiography on a “macro” scale, to use economic terms, is giving a clearer understanding of historiography in general, and should be very helpful in writing my own. Also, my prior study of the Middle East made the names in that section easier.
As for the introduction, I found it interesting to see the different names discussed, such as Adam Smith,(a personal favorite) Weber, Hegel, and Marx. It really highlights the fluidity of the social sciences, and how blurred the lines can be. It also highlights the philosophical underpinnings of different developments in historiography, and starkly contrasting perspectives, which Iggers and Wang seem to be exploring.
Anthony Brundage’s “A Guide to Historical Research and Writing” is a very helpful resource. Although it is geared towards undergraduate students, there was still things to be learned by graduate students. I can honestly say that had I read this book as an undergrad my life my have been much better. Brundage also discussed how to find information for research and the varies databases available for use. There were a few that I had never heard of, but I have always been pretty resourceful in the library because I often have limited time to spend in there. I try to find as many resources online (i.e. articles, ebooks) to further my research at home. Chapter 5 really cleared some questions I had about writing a historiographic essay. Overall the book is useful and know I will reference it when needed. It was not such a bad purchase after all.
Iggers is a difficult text mainly because it approaches historiography in a new way. Each region’s historiography can be very unique. There is a wealth of information to be studied in each culture. It is also interesting to examine the influences of the West and Euro centrism in the historiography of Eastern cultures. It is similarly interesting to examine how Euro centrism has affected the progress of historiography in the West. There is so much information to be learned even about historiography around the world; historians really do have a steep challenge. The Iggers text really made me feel overwhelmed simply because I am not used to studying historiography from an Eastern point of view. I suppose if I were kept abreast of historical debates in Eastern regions, the text would have felt a little more natural. Overall, Iggers is a refreshing, albeit difficult, way to study historiography.
Iggers approach in looking at the historiography of the “whole” not just the west is interesting and important. I had never before considered that history in the eastern cultures was different. There were instances seemed to challenge many historians about their view of historiography. He obviously strongly believes that we need to look at all these other cultures when considering historiography. I believe one of the new trends in history is try and temper the western bias and included the eastern cultures.
I like many of you did have a hard time reading this assignment. Much of it is because I do not have a good base of knowledge on the history of the Middle East, India and South East Asia. Taking in basic facts and then learn about the their approach made a little more difficult
I undoubtedly agree that the Iggers text was packed full of information that made it difficult to navigate. Personally, I think that this was an intentional device by the author to overwhelm the reader and hammer home their general argument regarding the diversity of global historiography. I think we all agree that the message was received. Despite this device, the first chapter managed to cover a wide swath of information that will likely set up the rest of the book. In particular, I found it interesting that the authors argue that a trait that all of these historiographical currents share is that they all have a basis in religion and the state. This fits nicely with our prior readings that explained how history was previously a tool for the elite to manage thoughts and justify policies. Overall, the selections were incredibly frustrating, but I imagine that clearer distinctions will be made down the road.
Iggers aaproach to a world historiogrpahy is especially useful in that he does not describe historiographic traditions in terms of west and other. By breaking down the various schools of thought he identifies aspects of scholarly tradition that broadly divide the traditions by region while illustrating the elements they have in common. Within the regional divisons, the historic backdrop of when history was written facilitates an understaning of the intnded audinece and the apporach taken by the hsitorian.
I agree thus far that Iggers is harder to read then some of the other things we have encountered so far. However i do like that Iggers examines the intricacies of the developments of assimilations. Also that Iggers wants us to use our knowledge of western Ideas and apply those to his examples of trade throughout the rapid globalization.
I agree with a lot of the comments about Iggers. I thought that the Intro was difficult to get through, but once I got into Chapter 1 he pointed out a variety of points that I never really considered. I give the author credit for analyzing the amount he did.
I actually thought the introduction was in many ways more concise, to the point, and easier to deal with than chapter one. I suppose part of that is because of what others have also stated, that some of the cultural areas described in chapter one are largely foreign to me and it is easy to get bogged down in unfamiliar names and cultural concepts. This is not to say that the information in chapter one is not good. Instead, its unfamiliar topics simply proved a little bit harder to get a firm grip on the larger points.
I should preface my comment by saying that reading the introduction and first chapter of Iggers truly made me feel ignorant. Not only was the reading quite dense to me, but the notion of ethnocentric historiography has never crossed my mind before.
At the end of the introduction, Iggers mentions that throughout the book he will investigate how and why history is written. While this is a hugely general idea, he asks the question if it is merely a means of expressing ideology. After reading the first chapter, I’m inclined to say that more often than not history is a means of expressing ideology. If nothing else, some cultures during the eighteenth century viewed history in this manner. At the very end of the chapter Iggers reiterates how historians were persecuted for their writings which were perceived as harmful ideologies by their governments in both Tokugawa Japan and the Qing Dynasty of China.
Well thanks Tom!
The fact that everyone thought the same thing about the difficulty of unfamiliar names and how it was a little rough to read makes me feel so much better. I thought maybe I was behind everyone else when it came to such things.
Considering Green and Troup’s elaboration on on method I noticed that much of what he said about empiricism is emphasized in historical methods today. This is especially true considering the heavy reliance on primary sources by historians. All this made me wonder if it is possible to approach history with some type of scientific method.
Disregard my comment above. I accidentally added it to the wrong post a while ago. I love this book! First of all, I enjoy how straight forward it is about each phase or influential school of history writing. The authors use just enough information to make their point without overloading us with little details that we have to weed through to see what they are trying to say. Secondly, (and what really won me over) is that the authors provide us with excerpts from what we have been learning about so we can actually see the characteristics of different historians’ writings for ourselves! I like that Green and Troup give introductions to each selection, telling us what to look for and asking what we notice. This makes for a more involved learning experience.
I agree that the introductory questions for each reading selection were interesting; I would find it stimulating to go through those with other members of the class (or with anyone interested, really).
I enjoyed reading the Green and Troup book. It was very clear and easy to understand. The examples were an interesting way to interact with the topic, and solidify ones understanding. There are many ways in which history has been impacted. It can be studied in diverse ways. The methods overlap at certain points and have all affected one another. The example for the section on Marxism was particularly interesting. The exploitation discussed and the complex social situation surrounding the “working class” was more complex than one might have thought. The Marxist angle was perfect for studying the economic and social situation of the time.
Ah! My comments are always placed in the wrong thread. My “I agree…” comment was intended for “hfearing’s” second comment, above.
I think that the approach of framing historiography against globalization puts a lot of history into an interesting context. The introduction to Iggers, et al. provided a really brief overview of the way in which imperialism has forced cultures to interact, and this provides an unique basis for understanding how history has changed as the pressures on those cultures has also changed. I also found the introduction valuable for its similarly brief overview of the philosophy of history, particularly it’s concern about the risks and values of doing history at the very end of the chapter.
Iggers gives a lot of informationa and history to the reader which can you feel overwhelemed. However, I did enjoy that when examining Indian historiograpghy he pointed out that myth/folklore can be considered a form of historiograpghy, that was not accepted by western historians.
I also appreciated the concise synopsis of each historical ideology, although at times it was difficult to fully distinguish several of the approaches, although Green and Troup do explicitly emphasize that the approaches are “not discrete”. At times it was hard to fully grasp the criticisms that had developed in response to key works in each school, because the book presents them so briefly. The individual examples are very interesting in their own right; the context shifts sometimes seem overwhelming, though.
This was enjoyable and informative at the same time. It felt as though I was ready a textbook. This was one of the first instances this semester where a reading was easy to analyze and examine. They gave a overview of a method of historiograpghy/theory, its sub-groups and the pros and cons of those theorys. I also enjoyed the introductions to the essay that accompany the chapters. The intros allow you to detect certain eveidence or interpertations that you might have missed.
The Green and Troup book has proven to be incredibly useful in strengthening my understanding of how these various approaches to history manifest themselves. Overall, I feel that they delineate between each school of thinking in a fairly clear way, but I do agree that some of these approaches bleed into one another just by their nature. The diversity of the examples given keeps the work fresh and I think allows the reader to have a clear break between each discussion. In particular, I enjoyed becoming more familiar with some of the more prominent names in each sub-field. I imagine that possessing at the very least a casual knowledge of more of these people will make further study a bit easier. I think that the Green and Troup produced a little more context into which we can place the larger concepts of history that we discussed earlier in the class.
I really appreciate and enjoy Green and Troup’s book as a fuller description of the dominant schools of historiography. It is very informative and helpful. It also helps that the authors include writing samples of the different schools. These help understand the theory sections better. They are good also exercises in analyzing texts and learning to spot different approaches and schools of thought.
Similar to most of the other comments, I found the Green and Troup reading to be a more interesting and enlightening read. I definitely would say that my education in history falls closest in line with the empiricists from chapter one; focusing on the gathering, criticizing, and verifying of sources with an emphasis on primary research. I must say, however, that I found chapter 4 on the Annales most interesting of all. Particularly, the notion of three layers of historical time (geographical, conjonctures, and the ephemera) which are interwoven and their relations to one another create the structures that illuminate society and its history.
Just got home and what’s on PBS….”The Story of India”! Iggers has me watching this documentry with a certain perspective to say the least.
Green and Troup make effective use of examples of the various approaches to history. Through a discussion of the major schools of thought, and their variations, followed by a representative selection they illustrate how the historiographic approaches relate. For example, the influence of marxist or sociological approaches can be seen in other types of history.
I found this particular article rather interesting, Geertz highlights and points out things in which I personally have never though about seriously. He opened his article about terms that were once new and looked at with enthusiasm but are now figuratively dead to the academic world. I ask what other terms and or theories have also died out due to old age and lack of followship? Also, I highly enjoyed the the wink vs. twitch example and how he used it to explain the difference in interpretations and easily things can be misconstrued if the culture’s established codes of behavior is unknown. The last point that I will address here and that I never really thought about but makes complete sense to me now, is that he states that culture is public because how else would people learn the behavioral codes if where not. For the outsiders, they must learn or rather interpret the codes through actor orientation. Geertz states clearly that an outsider does not have to know everything in order to understand something; therefore once the outsider gains some knowledge those deemed the insiders are essentially normalized to an extent. I felt I learned a lot more about ethnography in this article then I did in Green and Troup.
I also liked the wink vs. twitch explanation. The author not only discusses what goes in to anthropological and ethnographical studies, but also gives the common pitfalls in these practices.
I must say that Lepore’s personality shines through in her article and I found it enjoyable that a historian can be comical and yet whimsical at the same time. She personalized her article right away and engaged me from the beginning with the tale of Webster’s hair all the way to the end only to find that she was not a fan of the man. She brings up a valid point about where is the line between being objective or crossing the line because you spent so much time studying your subject that you fall in love with its content. I know that it must be difficult for biographers who try to maneuver their way around it. I’m still contemplating her betrayal point, otherwise I thought this was an excellent read.
Lepore states that the subject of this article was to find if microhistorians had any “new tricks up their sleeves.” I, however, believe the article is mainly an attempt to define microhistory against biographical history. However, I am glad this was the case. I would not have been able to critically examine a work to see if it was either a biography or a microhistory before reading the points that differentiate the two.
Panel #2 described social, religious, and political interactions among abolitionists and their organization of the Underground Railroad in the Western Reserve area during the 1850′s. I found it interesting how religious ideology shaped the views of Liberty Party members and set them in opposition of the slavery institution.
Iggers is concerned with the interaction of different cultures and how they perceive each other. In order to properly interpret historiography it is vital to account for point of view through understanding the customs, methods and motives of historians.
I’ve enjoyed Green and Troup’s evolution of historical method, from the empiricists to the historical sociologists. The chronology of the ‘schools’ show a trend toward analyzing social and cultural environments to understand how they precipitate change.
In Chapter 2 of Iggers and Wang, the authors discuss the growing tendency of historians in both Western and Eastern nations to write nationalistic histories. As seems to be the case in most of the new historical approaches, the Germans initiated this approach; other countries then followed. A very broad overview of this chapter would be that western countries began using national histories in response to the French Revolution while those who were occupied by the Ottomans and/or Great Britain did so to discover and legitimize their identities as a nations. Chapter 3 discusses how political developments, social changes, and (in the cases of Eastern countries) modernization and the introduction of Western ideals shaped the establishment of professional historical studies. Chapter four gives the general responses of historians in European countries and the United States to the World Wars. The authors also mention the historians whose views differ from the popular stances of their colleagues. The chapter also has a section dedicated to the Annales school and Marxism. And finally, chapter five builds on chapter two’s national historical focus. However, due to book’s chronology it is does so for a later time, eastern countries, such as Turkey, Japan, China, and India, and Egypt. This chapter also revisits some of the topics discussed in chapters three and four – professional historical study, Marxism, nationalism, and social histories – in the context of the countries on which the chapter is focused.
Hobsbawn begins by giving a definition of invented traditions. He then further explains invented traditions by comparing them with old traditions. I especially liked the explanation of traditions versus pragmatic conventions/routines. He states they are inversely related – practices can be made traditional when they are no longer practical.
I found the term “thick description” appropriate in terms of attempting to articulate intent, motive, meaning to behaviors and actions of humans. Geertz explains that anthropology is an interpretive discipline in which interpretations of culture are refined and redefined with each successive interpretation. Ethnologists conduct fieldwork to interpret ‘what a particular culture is.’ The historian must take culture into account in order to interpret past events, but is disadvantaged because their interpretations are based on historical primary sources that do not provide first hand observation of behavior.
From this article I have gleaned that a microhistory can provide a more ‘intimate’ interpretation of cultural and social (as well as political) landscapes during the time period under consideration. Through microhistory we can consider mentalite through exchange of ideas and statements of historical figures whom are negotiating their ordinary lives (although most likely set in extraordinary circumstances).
This article is very clear and enjoyable to read. The examples used were very interesting. I liked the description of ethnography as “think description.” Anthropology is important to historical study. Understanding a framework for social interaction and viewing society from the subject’s viewpoint is very important in order to gain proper information on a topic. I liked the description Geertz gave of using “scientific imagination” to place oneself into the life of another.
As historians, we are concerned about what invented traditions reveal about society and how it identifies with its past. Though there is recent decline in traditional observances due to a disinterest in the past,invented traditions persist through public institutions that reinforce nationalistic ‘pride’ toward the citizenry. Thus tradition is invented and observed easier if it in it unifies without regard to class.
I agree with Heidi. The article helped to define the difference between microhistory and biography. Lepore’s conclusion that microhistory explores a device and not a subject is very enlightening. This conclusion also explains her argument that microhistorians are less likely to fall in love with their “device.” This remains to be seen and greatly depends on the author. I enjoyed the author’s writing style and description of her feelings about the lock of hair.
Hobsbawm believes that studying invented traditions is important because it reveals problems and developments in society. This seems to be a good point. It also shows how a community interacts with its past, which is essentially revealing history, or at least perceived history. The three reasons that Hobsbawm gives for invented tradition are interesting as well. He claims that invented traditions are for social cohesion, legitimizing authority, or socialization.
Great summary Heidi! I found chapter three to be particularly interesting. The section about Japan and their quest to be civilized and modern, while separating themselves from China and Asia is very thought-provoking. Simply that they had the desire and mindset that western ideas proved confusion historiography to be outdated and the desire to stay up to date is very different from other areas. Iggers emphasizes Japan’s prerogative to place themselves as a civilized, emerging nation on a world sphere. This led to the importance of historical method while still holding the traditions of their own society.
I too found chapter 3 to be interesting for similar reasons, specifically how Japan maintained an isolationist mentality. Despite this mentality, the political elite kept limited contact with Westerners which resulted in Japan developing more of a nationalistic-based history. This was exemplified by the writings of Fukuzawa Yukichi, who downplayed moral and political histories that were traditional in Japan. He also promoted the unilateral progressive history of Japan as a nation.
These chapters from Iggers and Wang generated some general conclusions despite their demonstration that global historiography is quite diverse. In particular, I found it fascinating that Middle Eastern historians adopted many Western methods and then used these methods to undermine European imperialism. A similar strategy took place within the Asian countries measured in which legitimacy was established by making historical connections to past greatness. Much like the West, historiography in Asia and the Middle East is intertwined with political and economic developments. The authors mention that after the 1929 stock market crash that Marxist approaches spike in places like Japan who were feeling the effects of economic uncertainty. Overall, these selections offer further evidence regarding the many positive and negative uses of history throughout the world. The further professionalization of the field helped to reduce some of these misinterpretations, but Iggers and Wang clearly demonstrate that history cannot exist outside the parameters of world events and the consciousness of the historian.
In Geertz’s article, he describes some of the numerous pitfalls that ethnographers can encounter when trying to explain a particular people, culture, etc. His devotion to trying to capture the thick description of a subject is clearly a fundamental aspect of his research. In addition, I enjoyed how he attacked common perceptions of anthropologists studying communities from afar and commenting on how strange their behavior might be. His attack on the concept of the natural laboratory was also poignant as he points out that it is impossible to control parameters in reality. Geertz was also very committed to the idea that ethnographers should simply write down what they observed and should avoid trying to extrapolate such conclusions past their usefulness. Overall, I found his article valuable in that it made me consider some of the pitfalls that researchers can encounter when they attempt to prove an outcome that simply does not exist.
This is avery thought provoking article. In general I believe that Geertz was writing that culture can be used as a tool of interpertaion. At times the article was dense, but the author uses of the sheep incident supported his thoughts.
This author did a splendid job of defining microhistory and biographies. The article made me think as to if I have ever read a microhistory, and if so did I enjoy or interpet it differntly from a biograpghy. while reading this article I reflected on the reading by Iggers and what to know if any modern Isalmic histroians use microhistory in relation to The Prophet Muhammed?
Unlike the other articles Hobsbawm’s article did little in interseting me. However,I did enjoy his examples of customs and routines. In past articles I found pieces of information or analyses that encouraged me to quesion how it realtes to Historiograpghy. Hobsbawm”s work did not provide that for me.
In this article, Geertz goes to great lengths to highlight a fairly straightforward point: we can never fully reconstruct the past; everything an anthropologist (or historian) writes about people is an abstraction. That said, he does usefully highlight several key traps that analysts can fall into when they allow their analysis to take on more significance than that of an abstraction.
What I found very intresting was how the Indian histrorians adopoted a three era, Western approach to its historiograpghy. The concept of antiquity, the Dark Ages(Mughal’s) and Modernism was so similar to the West. It ironic how both view the rise of the Islam and the Middle East as Dark Ages in thier histories. I was very pleased with Iggers explanation of how the Positivist, German Historical School and MArxist paradigms had common aspects in chapter three
Lepore’s essay in which she differntiates microhisotory and biogrpahy is helpeful in making better use of either type of work. Seeing microhistory as approaching a historical question or theme through an individual fosters a better understadning of an author’s intent. Additionally, the reminder of the distance and treatment biographers and historians employ allows for questioning thier subjevtivity.
Invented tradtion as opposed to custom or pragmatic routine is especially relevant as we investigate nationalist uses of history. The creation of tradition to connect with an imagined past and espouse common vales and beliefs appears to correlate with history written to serve the same purpose.
My bad. I submitted that comment with the wrong article.
Invented tradtion as opposed to custom or pragmatic routine is especially relevant as we investigate nationalist uses of history. The creation of tradition to connect with an imagined past and espouse common vales and beliefs appears to correlate with history written to serve the same purpose.
The clarity of this article is refreshing as Lepore strongly argues the merits of microhistory. Lepore seems to feel that the approach has been discounted as too precise, but she shows how it can be a useful tool in understanding a larger historical context. Lepore notes how microhistorians are often less attached to their subjects both literally and figuratively which makes their product somewhat less subjective. Lepore certainly does not argue that we can not draw sweeping conclusions based on the lives of “ordinary” people, but she does see the inherent value in being able to place a closely defined person in a larger context.
Hobsbawm’s discussion of invented traditions is particularly useful when understanding how nations view themselves. I found this interesting in light of our recent readings in Iggers where history is used as a source of legitimization for nationalist movements. He uses the term “grafting” to explain how this process sometimes takes place which I felt was a good description. Perhaps, the most important aspect of these invented traditions is their ability to slip into our identities and become part of our character without our full recognition of their origins.
People do not do their work in a vacuum, but are rather influenced by the culture in which they live. This seems to be Geertz’ general point, which is examined using various examples. This seems to be a common sense statement, but the ramifications of this concept are explored here. Geertz uses the idea of “thick description” to show the meaning that can be found in seemingly simple things, such as a wink, that can be analyzed by ethnographers. Thick description, as I understand Geertz, is analysis of the subtext of what is studied. What I found striking about this article is the analysis of the concept of culture, which I, as well as many others, assume to share a common definition. Geertz challenged this assumption, as it pertains to anthropology. It makes me wonder what other general terms might have this issue. The “verstehen” approach of viewing things through the eyes of those being examined, is an essential component of the work of historians. Geertz also explores the inherent difficulties of “soft science” as the social sciences are often described, because of the inherent aspect of culture and bias on the part of the examiner, but explains how this does not mean that it is futile. This article seems to again emphasize the interrelatedness of the social sciences.
Lepore seems to be attempting to articulate a Venn Diagram of microbiography and biography in the context of historiography. Ginzburg is one of the books that Dr. Lehfeldt is having us read, so it is nice to be able to look directly at one of these microhistories. Lepore seems to be a bit too defensive in her discussion, and it weakens her argument. While addressing potential arguments is an important part of writing, her overemphasis seems to portray her argument as inherently weak.
Hobsbawm’s article goes particularly well with reading Geertz. The “invented tradition” contrasting of tradition and custom, as well as routine and convention, again forces me to question the meaning of the general terminology that I use. As an aside, I found the article that began on Highland tradition of particular interest, and would like to read for my own pleasure.
Here are my topic questions:
Topic Questions
- Before and during the Civil War, Cleveland was almost completely racially integrated, and African Americans were relatively economically and socially well-off. As the mass migrations of 1890-1915 increased Cleveland’s black population, discrimination grew as well. What caused this shift to occur in Cleveland?
- Why did Cleveland’s black population become more concentrated in Cleveland as it became larger? It had been interspersed before the Civil War.
- What caused black discrimination to be particularly bad in economic areas when immigrants were able to come to Cleveland specifically for jobs?
o What type of jobs were black Clevelanders limited to?
- Was the Cleveland Gazette-the city’s first African American newspaper-a product of the break down in integration?
o How did this newspaper portray whites?
o Did the Cleveland Gazette offer any clues as to the feelings of white Clevelanders toward black city residents?
o How did other Cleveland newspapers, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the Cleveland Press portray blacks?
- Were there any policies specific to Cleveland that encouraged discrimination and segregation?
- Why did Cleveland’s schools continue to be integrated when African Americans were excluded from other public areas?
- Van Tassel states that Cleveland’s “white leadership remained sympathetic to civil rights during the decade following the war.” Did a change in the type of leadership occur which would explain the change?
- Was Cleveland’s discrimination simply due to the mentality of Americans during this time? Or were the causes for the city’s discrimination specific to Cleveland? Or both?
I plan on studying Cleveland History during the Progressive Era. Particularly I will focus on Cleveland mayor Tom Johnson who was a very active progressive on the city level. Some of the questions I have are what are Johnson’s objectives. I know he fought for 3 cent train fairs and opposed monopolies. It will be interesting to explore these elements further. I also want to know who are Johnson’s biggest opponents and how they resisted Johnson. Upon the completion of my research I will evaluate how effective Johnson was in implementing his objective reforms.
Topic: The American Suffrage Movement and the Immigrant Women’s Involvement in Cleveland, Ohio (1900-1920)
To what extent were immigrant women involved in the movement in Cleveland, Ohio?
What motivated them into getting involved?
What were the push and pull factors of their decision to getting involved?
What was Cleveland’s history in the suffrage movement?
What was the population in Cleveland during this time?
Did this influence who participated?
What were the suffrage organizations in Cleveland at the time?
What kinds of campaigning did these groups do to gain immigrant support?
Did culture and ethnicity play a major role in who participated?
Which immigrant groups were more involved then the rest?
Where did these women live?
What was the response from their families, especially their male relatives?
Was there more participation from a particular age group compared to others?
How defined were class lines within the movement?
Was there any resistance to their involvement within the movement by native born participants?
What are the numbers and percents of immigrant involvement?
Were there any immigrant leaders in the movement?
What were the kinds of tactics used by immigrant women?
What was the response from the public to these responses?
Was there any involvement in militant tactics?
To what extent were the consequences, if any, were these women subjected to?
What was the percentage of immigrant women arrested for their actions? Any in Ohio?
What was Ohio’s response judicially to their tactics?
What kinds of work were these women doing to bring in income?
Were there more females from one industry over another that were involved in the movement?
What were the working conditions like for them and were they the factors that pushed them into getting involved?
What was the response from employers?
Did companies fire women if they were involved or suspended them?
Were there any kinds of support groups for working women?
To what extent did World War I have on immigrant women and their involvement in the movement?
How did the war affect the movement in Ohio?
How did the war affect the image of the movement?
What was President Wilson’s response to immigrant participation? If any?
What were the results in Ohio?
Who supported the bill? Who did not?
What was the vote count?
What was Cleveland’s involvement in passing the bill?
Topic: Women in labor/trade unions and Women’s unions within union in from in the 1950s and 1960s
- How did women gain entry into trade unions?
- What were the obstacles to entry into labor/trade union for women?
- After admission into unions, did women achieve parity with men?
–Were women equally represented within the unions and by the unions?
- Were grievances by women taken seriously by union leadership?
- Were grievances by women handled in the same manner as men’s grievances, or were women encouraged not to complain?
- Were women allowed/given leadership roles in unions?
- Did all unions exclude women from leadership roles?
- What unions encouraged women leadership roles?
- At what level were women able to move into leadership roles-Local, State, National
- What types of discrimination did women face trying to gain entry into labor/trade unions?
- Were women harassed and abused as a means to keep them from joining?
- As a means to keep them from leadership roles?
- Were women forced out of unions?
- How were women driven out of unions?
•What tactics did the male membership/leadership use to limit the role of women in unions?
- How did unions treat women that worked for the unions, i.e. office workers?
- Were union employees allowed to join the union?
- Were union employees given the same benefits as union officials and union members?
- How did unions discriminate female office workers?
- Why did women form their own unions?
oWhat types of unions did women form?
–Office worker unions (OPEIU)
–Garment worker unions (AGWU)
–Stewardess unions
–Hotel maids unions
- Was the AFL-CIO supportive of women’s unions?
–Did they force women to accept men in the leadership roles of these unions?
- Were women’s unions absorbed into larger and more powerful labor/trade unions?
–Were women able to maintain leadership roles within the larger Unions?
—When did the AFL-CIO begin to accept women in leadership roles at the local, state and national levels?
- Has female participation in unions increased as more women enter a traditionally male workforce?
My topic is The Spanish Flu in Cleveland.
My questions include how Cleveland compares to other cities, to rural areas, and what the medical-, civic-, religious-, media-, and popular reactions to the epidemic were. I’m also curious to look at mortality rates and neighborhoods; maybe looking at demographics. And, I want to find out if there were any military camps in the areas, and how many Clevelanders went to military camps – regardless of location. I’m also curious if there were any permanent changes in public health following the epidemic. Finally, I would like to know more about how people explained and dealt with the situation; both medically and philosophically.
I thought this article was both great and exacerbating.
The example of the twitch and the wink wonderfully described what doing ethnography is, and what the author means by “thick description”. Also, the point that culture is public was well stated and explained. He also made great points about understanding anthropological writings as ‘fictions’ – not false, but constructed. And, his pointing out that a small unit can not be used to make sweeping claims about the entirety is both clear and important.
In short, I was not exacerbated or frustrated by his arguments. Instead, what made me almost lose the will to go on reading was the extremely intricate style of writing. I thought it was striking how he somehow made fairly straight-forward arguments and concepts sound so complicated. Also, I was never a big fan of the five lines long sentences. But that is all personal preference I suppose.
I really like an article that is also a good read. That may seem beside the point, but I think it matters. It is not only about having a good argument, but also to communicate that argument to people. I think Lepore succeeds brilliantly in both. Her musings on the differences between biographies and microhistories -and the people who write them – are very well thought out and formulated. The key conclusion that microhistorians’ subjects are simply devices; making it less likely for the microhistorians to fall in love (or hate) them, is a logical conclusion to her investigation.
Topic: Prohibition and its effect on organized crime in Cleveland during the 1920s.
Was there an increase in organized criminal activity and by how much?
What kinds of activities increased? How were the activities accomplished?
Who became involved in organized crime as it related to prohibition?
What neighborhoods were most affected by prohibition and crime?
Who was involved in monitoring and remedying crime that was related to prohibition?
During what year was organized crime related to prohibition the worst? Toward the beginning of prohibition or close to the repeal?
How was prohibition justified in the face of an increase in organized crime and possibly violence?
How did those who became involved in organized crime related to prohibition justify their behavior?
How did organized crime in Cleveland related to prohibition compare to organized crime in other cities?
How did organized crime change as a whole after prohibition went into effect?
Topic Idea: In general, what made Cleveland such a hotbed for radical labor activity during the First Red Scare?
What factors explain why the 1919 May Day demonstrations in Cleveland turned violent in contrast to the relative tranquility of other nearby industrial cities?
Is there any single factor that made Cleveland more of a hotbed for radicalism than these other cities?
What specific events led to the riots that were not present in other cities? Did the later strikes of the Red Summer of 1919 indicate that radicalism was particularly prevalent in Cleveland/Northeast Ohio?
Cities to consider: Pittsburgh, Chicago, Detroit
Approach: Contrast/compare the radical labor scenes in several nearby cities to determine general environment and possibly understand why some areas were more intense.
Goals: Better understand the First Red Scare, acquire more insight into radical labor movements in the Midwest, determine how Cleveland/Northeast Ohio played into this period, possibly determine what factors make an industrial city more radical than another.
My paper will involve investigating trends in US agricultural exports in the middle of the 20th century. What countries were the main importers of US agricultural products, particularly during the Cold War, and how did these trade patterns affect the demographics and economic situations of the corresponding countries? What US policy considerations affected its growth of exports and trade relationships during this period?
I wan to look at the Rise and Fall of Cleveland’s Downtown Department Stores. The questions I have include:
Were the store’s successes mirrored by the success of the city? Are dept store sales figures a good way to measure growth of a city?
What were the factors that led to the decline and eventual closing of the stores? Urban decay? Over expansion? Change in company direction?
How did new technologies affect the stores strategies?
Were Cleveland stores similar to stores across the country? Were they more similar to other midwest cities? Or New York? Or the West Coast? What about the rest of the world?
How was the relationship between success and location in the city? Higbee’s and May Company on Public Square versus Halle’s on Playhouse Square.
What was the connection between how people felt about the stores and how they felt about the downtown area as a whole? How did this change over time? Specifically with the rise of suburbs
How important to a store’s success was transportation? Did that change over time? Streetcars, Terminal Complex and Shaker Rapid, failed subway system plans, automobiles and parking lots.
How did store rivalries affect their strategies?
After World War II were the changes the stores made a result of increased consumerism? Or were they the drivers of this consumerism?
How did advertising change and develop over time?
How did sales strategies change over time? Layout of the stores, home delivery, catalogues
I am still unsure whether I should limit myself to one store, like Higbee’s, or look at all of them as a group.
Race and Economics 1945-1954 : Blacks in Cleveland, Ohio. I will be looking at the lives of blacks in Cleveland after WW II until Brown vs. Board of Education. The 1950s were considered a time of prosperity, why or why not did the black population of Cleveland flourish? I want to focus on the conditions and lives of blacks in Cleveland, mostly the middle class. It seems that historians tend to focus on blacks and poverty, there needs to be research on black families and individuals who would be considered middle class.
Subject: I would like to look at why Jews immigrated from their home country wherever that may be, to Cleveland in the late nineteenth Century and early twentieth century.
Questions:
1. Why choose Cleveland or surrounding cities?
2. What made you leave?
political
terrorism
3. What was the Journey like?
easy to get out of the country, smuggled out.
what was the boat ride like
4. Were people separated form their family, how did they cope?
5. What were the first impressions of Cleveland like?
6. What was the housing situation like, the education system?
7. What was the community’s response to the influx of newly arriving Jewish immigrants?
8.Was it easy to find work? What kind of work was available?
9. How did the Jewish Community Center or Jewish organization help in the situation period?
10. Were there any regrets? Depending on why people came over, or were there any regrets to settling Cleveland and not a larger city?
In chapter 4 of Iggers, I found it most appealing that the histories being talked about focus centrally on region rather then on focusing on transnationalism. Further more, being Jewish and having strong ties to the Jewish life in Cleveland, I found it interesting that in many of the examples, the Author and the study look at antisemitism within the particular school of thought.
Further more I found this chapter to be likened to that of the Ann and Troup chapter of Social history.
The arguement of the twitch Vs. the Wink, I thought was an interesting example. Looking at the social norms and nuances of the society. The Idea of looking at history through and Anthropological stance, I thought was an interesting way to depict social and societal behavior through history, whether dealing with a wink or the cat massacre.
I really think that there is a difference between Micro-history and Biography. The idea that a micro history can be a biography but only deals with a certain aspect of the persons life. While the biographer tries to tie everything together. Was I the only one creeped out by her handling Websters hair, and feeling that connection?
1. Did the extremist abolitionists become more violent after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850?
a. How many events preceded the escalation of violence as seen in Bleeding Kansas & Harpers Ferry
2. Was the Underground Railroad inherently violent? (Not necessarily physically, but in terms of forcibly seizing “human property” and people prepared to defend that property with force.
3. Were those willing to fight on Kansas and Harpers Ferry typical of participants in the Underground Railroad?
a. The provisional government of John Brown formed in Canada was in a community of fugitive slaves, to what extent does this imply a link?
4. Do historians treat the extralegal use of force as a part of the Underground Railroad activities or as an aberration?
5. How did the non-violent extremist abolitionists, i.e. William Lloyd Garrison, Douglas, respond to uses of force?
6. Have historians studied other forms of extremism in the abolitionist movement?
7. Did slaves / fugitives use force as a part of the Underground Railroad?
8. What impact did slave rebellions have in the Underground Railroad?
9. Did extreme abolitionists/ participants in the Underground Railroad play a role in the guerrilla fighting during the civil war?
Topic: James Garfield and his wife Lucretia, focusing on the role of their relationship on his professional life.
I will examine women’s gender roles in 1950’s American Suburbs
The suburban landscape under consideration will generally be taken in the context of the northeastern United States model of “white middle-class” suburban expansion which will be defined in the paper.
How did women actually behave in the “1950’s white middle-class suburbs?”
How were gender roles assigned to the post-war culture?
How did women express opposition to these assigned gender roles?
How did women effect consumption and the design of goods during the 1950’s?
How did their consumer choices influence social and cultural life in general?
Were 1950’s gender roles an ‘invented tradition’ created for nationalistic purposes?
Can a mentalité be determined from sources such as consumer ads, cookbooks, marriage and sex manuals, school curriculum (home economics class material), film, newspaper editorials, court cases, and organized social activity?
I felt that he gave an interesting definition of “nation”, however I thought he rambled his way through four pages in order to get to his point. I did think that when he said nationalism invents nations where they do not exist was a clear and rational point which could have been in the beginning of his intro instead of the Vietnam War.
I thought that his intro was idiotic, that whole story line of what would the reading list be if aliens, or whatever, came to study human history. The idea that they would have to learn and understand what “nation” means in order to comprehend human history, I think is ridiculous. Also, he contradicts himself when he says that a nation could be based on a single criteria and then later he says that it can’t be reduced to a single concept. So in other words, it can be one way yet not the other — I don’t get it.
In general, I do not like Hobsbawm’s style of writing, I find it boorish and elitist. For example the fact that he uses foreign languages to describe terms, yet does not translates them all the time. Secondly, what I found obnoxious was his three criteria of how to become a nation: having a foreign policy, a elite culture with a written history, and a proven attitude for expansion and conquest (I am aware that these were not the exact words used, I’m simply paraphrasing). His criteria I found was just another Western idea that gets established in order to prove its dominance over the rest of the world.
I found myself questioning his argument, especially when states that people who see themselves as unified can develope a sovereign right to the land that they either originate from or over the land in which they are currently live on. My question is about Americans now and can you argue that we still have a right over this land when originally our ancestors came from elsewhere and the Native Americans were actually the original people on the land? Don’t they have more right then we do? Then he went on to say that people not only have a right to national sovereignty but also to conquer and colonize those who were not organized enough to be nationalized. He constantly talks about the people’s “right” to do what ever they want. Who gave them this “right”? I know then it goes into a debate on Hobbes and Locke theories.
I enjoyed this article, I thought that using one main event as the focus of defining American nationalism was a lot easier to follow and comprehend then some of the previous articles that included various world history. I do agree with the argument the authors were trying to make and enjoyed the emphasis upon tracing American mythology and its importance to its nationalistic construction.
I disagree with mondello. Although the alien story is a bit peculiar, it nonetheless manages to get some important points across. For instance, the fact that we should not view nationalism as something that makes implicit sense, or should be seen as a given. I think Hobsbawm does well in showing how the concepts of nationalism and ‘the nation’ are rather new in the history of mankind. Also, he does not claim that one must understand what “nation” means in order to understand human history. He states that the “nation” is central to the last 200 years of human history. The idea that it is only essential to the last 200 years is part of Hobsbwam’s point about the novel nature of nationalism.
Also, I thought it was important that Hobsbwam pointed out that there are a multitude of ways for people to identify themselves, with nationalism being one of them.
I really appreciated the linguistic/philology approach taken at the beginning of this chapter. The meaning of words in a language can tell us a lot about a society. I found the changing meaning of the word ‘nation’ to be very fascinating, and also a pretty good piece of evidence when seeking to establish a timeline for the development of nationalism and ‘the nation’. The part of the article/chapter that dealt with economics and liberalism was a bit harder to access.Even so, the idea of how ‘the nation’ pertains to liberal ideology, with the nation being a part of mankind’s progressive history towards a unified world was thought provoking.
I am glad that Hobsbwam started off with getting a number of definitions of terms. Once that was done, he could move on to the more interesting bits. Such as the reasons why traditions are invented, and who invents them. I especially like the straight-forward three-fold observation stating that traditions were invented for group cohesion, to legitimize power, and to diffuse beliefs and mores. I think that is a very precise overview of the issue.
I thought that author made a good point about Southern nationalism. I would enjoy reading the rest of the book, I thought he did a good job of keeping the attention of his reader. I question whether nationalism can be based off of negative tones, such as fear. I’m not sure he made a strong enough argument against this.
First of all, I am pretty sure that Duara talks about ‘rights’ as way that people justify or explain claims. And, as a way to explain different ways of understanding definitions and myths of nationalism. It certainly did not strike me as the author’s own standard for determining people’s ‘rights’. In looking at how history is used to create nationalistic ideas and national identities, I think Duara did a good job in pointing out the reasons why we should be aware of and rethink “the way history is represented”.(42)
This chapter does a great job in describing both how and why historical myths are created. The quotes at the beginning of the chapter helped prepare the argument, as did the great, blatant statement that “[w]arfare lies at the heart of the American national experience”(188). I found the ensuing narrative and arguments for the most part reasonable. I am curious to see what people in the class think about the chapter though. From an American point of view, I mean. Does the statements made in the article ring true to people born and raised in the US? And what does everybody think and feel about the closing statement that the US should not be seen as a nation apart?
I may be willing to accept the authors’ argument that there was no a strong nationalistic sense in the South at the time. But, I am not at all inclined to accept the overall statement that the Confederacy lost the war due to a lack of will, nor that this lack of will was due to a weak sense of nationalism. The former seems to be an inaccurate assumption if we consider the lengths people in the South were willing to go in order to fight and persevere in the war (as well as the gung ho attitude expressed in several southern letters and diaries from the time). Furthermore, to argue that the South’s (allegedly) lacking morale was largely due to a lack of a nationalistic sense of unity is to give nationalism more power and influence than is necessarily true. It is very possible for groups not sharing a nationalistic identity to fight ferociously together, and with strong morale, in a common cause. No, I find myself not agreeing with this chapter at all.
This introduction proposes some interesting approaches for looking at nationalism. Throughout the chapter, Hobsbawm alludes to the fluid nature of nationalism and argues how static definitions cannot fully encapsulate how the phenomenon manifests itself in the real world. He also makes it clear that nationalism is a modern creation and often one that is reinforced by societal constructions that eventually become accepted facts. His final warning that historians cannot be nationalists is a somewhat obvious yet necessary statement. Overall, I think that Hobsbawm established that trying to develop a reusable definition of nationalism can be a pointless endeavor.
In my opinion, this article bounced around quite a bit and I did not feel that it was very precise. Duara questions how people view history without understanding how it is constructed and then uses an example that is difficult to follow. There is an interesting thought that nationalists sometimes claim nationalist traditions unite the people while they are trying to reform them to meet immediate needs. The author obviously had concerns over periodization and generalizations, but that is not a constant theme throughout the article. Overall, I cannot claim to fully grasp what the author was trying to establish as a whole.
I thought that Grant made a number of compelling arguments throughout this article relating to how many in the US view themselves in a delusional fashion. In my eyes, she made a strong case that the nation tends to hide behind big ideals without acknowledging the nastiness of American history. I suppose this stance is the luxury of the present dominance of the country, but perhaps this perception is somewhat softening due to recent events. Showing how the Revolutionary War affected Civil War participants helped to establish a lineage of warfare in the country. The latter part of the article discusses the many ways that the Civil War became mythologized in society with an attempt to paint both sides as righteous. This discussion was useful because it shows how our universal unwillingness to accept the reality of our personal and national actions can damage history and prevent greater understanding.
My favorite part was Hobsbawm’s explanation of traditions emerging out of religious practices (“pragmatic conventions”) when they are no longer practical. The reason I liked it is because my mom and I were talking about this issue yesterday and I was able to wip this selection out to read it to her.
I found this argument that a supposed lack of Confederate nationalism figured heavily into the South’s fortunes during the Civil War as somewhat questionable. The article continuously mentions how the South had a distinct culture that was largely based on its widespread acceptance of slavery. In addition, I feel like Southerners were attached to their lands, traditions, and distinctive speech which appears to me to be a nationalism in itself. I do feel that perhaps this nationalism was not fully exploited to aid the war effort, but I disagree that Confederate nationalism was non-existent. The article consistently talks about how the North and the South had quite a bit in common , but does not clearly lay out Union nationalism. In general, I disagreed with this article’s conclusion, but did enjoy the observations made in how people viewed their respective sides during the Civil War.
Hobsbawm’s writing is like a Leonardo DiCaprio movie; you get all of this information and you think, “Am I ever going to find out what the point of all of this is?” In this case, I think the point was that liberal nationalists believe that building a nation requires a certain size and economic ability (threshold principle). Ethnicity, language, and history has nothing to do with building a nation These factors will disappear or become one of many parts that make up the nation. Similarly, nations will eventually merge into one world nation – the final stop in the evolution of expansion.
This look at the evolution of nationalism lends further evidence to other author’s arguments that nationalism is a fluid distinction. He demonstrates how categories can both unite and separate peoples based on the particular situation. Hobsbawm’s qualifications for a “nation” surely can stir up some discussion about how the world legitimizes national movements. His proposal that the world community will not recognize a nation unless it is sufficiently large enough or demonstrates an inclination for expansion is very persuasive. This premise that nations can only exist when other more established nations allow them into their ranks is further evidence about the artificiality of nationalism. It appears that Hobsbawm is very intrigued by this process and hopes to expose its flaws and mechanisms to prevent hard distinctions and policies from forming.
So, contrary to everyone else, I really liked the beginning. I guess I am a dork and have actually wondered many times what people in the distant future would think if they explored our cities if we just abandoned them. The rest of his writing was pretty dry, I will admit. I do like how Hobsbawn says that nations are not static. He goes on to say that “national consciousness” has gone (or goes) through three phases: Cultural, national ideas and political campaigning, and mass support for nationalist programs.
The Anderson definition of nationalism as an “imagined community” seems to avoid many of the pitfalls of other formulas. The critique that Marxism abandoned global goals in favor of nationalism makes a lot of sense and helps to explain why Communism did not survive on a large or dogmatic scale. Anderson’s thinking is reminiscent of Hobsbawm in that they both see nationalism as a recent and fabricated concept.
I have heard theories before about a lack of unity of ideas, desires, and sense of comradery having a lot to do with defeat in wars. I do agree with Hawk that the author’s argument is a little shaky. I think the idea is very interesting, but if he gave more evidence I might be more convinced. Maybe after reading the book in its entirety the argument is supported.
Like Ryan, after completing the article I was not quite sure what the point was. It went completely over my head. Something about authentic connections to land and literature.
I did not like Hobsbawam’s methods of understanding history. What bothered me was that Hobsbawam assumes that human history is only intelligible if and only if we study history through the lens of nationalism. I would strongly disagree with this approach considering what we know of peoples that were not considered as nations. Take for example the many Native American tribes during the colonial period. Some of these tribes consisted of many numbers, other tribes had very small numbers. These tribes were not considered as nations, yet there is much we know about them though they were not nations.
This article gives much attention to Confederate nationalism during the American Civil War. There is such an emphasis on nationalism, that the authors conclude that the reason for Confederate defeat was a Confederate lack of nationalism. I think that these authors overlooked one simple fact, which was that the Confederacy was winning the Civil War at the very beginning, and it was so for the first two years of the war. If the Confederates lacked nationalism, I think that the war would have resulted in a much quicker victory for the Union, and the war would have ended in 1861.
FYI on Hobsbawm, The Invention of Tradition: The last two lines of page one were not photocopied. My apologies. Here are the last two sentences of the first page, concluding on page 2:
“In fact, where possible, they normally attempt to establish continuity with a suitable historic past. A striking example is the deliberate choice of a Gothic style for the nineteenth-century rebuilding of the British parliament, and the equally deliberate decision after World War II to rebuild the parliamentary chamber on exactly the same basic plan as before.”
The concept of the nation is seen as having been poorly defined by both Marxist and liberal theorists despite the fact the is an underlying principle in thier writtings. He defines the nation as an imagined sovereign community that is concsiously understood to limited in its territory and population.
Hobsbawm introduction into the concepts of nationalism illustrates quite effectivley the need to understand a term that does not have a fixed meaning. The idea of looking at “nation” from the perspective of an alien reinforces the idea that to undertand a nation it is necessary to understand how the apparatus of states combine with changing ideas of national idnetifications to create a nation.
Invented tradtion as opposed to custom or pragmatic routine is especially relevant as we investigate nationalist uses of history. The creation of tradition to connect with an imagined past and espouse common vales and beliefs appears to correlate with history written to serve the same purpose.
The relatively recent introduction of the concpet of nation, as opposed to empire or other state, furthers the argument that it is not a fixed concept with a simple definition. The changing defintions in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the relfect the shifting understanding of nation during periods of expanding states and increasingly international trade.
I don’t know if I understood anything this author was trying to say. I think the author is arguing that the construction of a nation as a historical space dictates how the past is understood. Control of the discourse of the past, either through defining it in dinstinct perdiods or through nations, allows for representations of history that serve to shape understanding of historical change.
I enjoyed what Hobswams interpretation of what Tradition is and developed definitions for key terms. Like Hawk said in his post. The idea that traditions were invented for the whole rather then the single person made it enjoyable to be able to promote the idea of power versus beliefs.
In Arnolds book, it has for historians been one of the more frequently used concepts and yet has not been properly defined. Anderson approaches the problem by analyzing the historical contexts in which different nationalism have developed throughout the histories. Examining the conditions which make this imagining possible, Anderson sets forth a typology of nationalism with four broadly based categories. Creole, vernacular, official and post colonial. He defines the nation as an “imagined political community and imaged as both inherently limited and sovereign.”(page 5)
It is imagined in that it causes people whom have never met, and may otherwise have nothing in common to see themselves existing together. Very deeply so despise any conditions of oppression which may exist within this community, its members are often willing to kill or be killed for each other. It is considered as limited in that no nation itself to encapsulate humanity, but rather has borders. The picture painted defiantly shown as “us” and a “them.” It is sovereign in that the concept in itself is an artifact of the so called age of enlightenment,in which old orders of supposedly divinely ordained heads which ran most states were thrown down. The nation or the idea of nation sees itself as free from such overreaching structures of authority.
( Sorry I have read the book)
This article really made me think about nationalism and being built around beliefs of southern pride. This article was an enlightened read as it wanted to look at American made myths and its importance to its nationalistic elements.
I see the quantitative approach as a tool more than a ‘school’ While reading, I am usually interested in graphs and tables, as they, hopefully, are showing me hard evidence. It is challenging, and rewarding, to interpret their meaning.
Hobsbawm put forth an interesting argument on the meaning of nation and nationalism. His comment that it is not as easy as bird-watching was a good analogy. Also when he mentioned that nationalism is always shifting like clouds that appear as landmarks is also a nice visual example. There are many forces that create a nation. Hobsbawm points out that they are created, not something that just inherently forms. Nationalism is what creates nations. Hobsbawm points out that nationalism is relatively new and more study is needed. The three phases of national movements were interesting as well.
Historians from the second half of the nineteenth century did not shake the tendency to report history from a nationalistic perspective. Though Ranke and others were determined to examine the primary sources and report what actually happened, their interpretations were biased.
Anderson made the point that Nationalism is really an expression rather than an ideology. Anderson suggests that a nation is an “imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign” (page 15). The nation is very important in modern politics, yet is hard to define.
A nation is an imagined community with ideals created from the top and manifested by manipulating its cultural segments to promote and adapt its political ideologies. The imagined community does not have to understand or believe in the ideals, but to somehow hold allegiance to them.
Hobsbawm argued that historians from the period 1830 – 1880 viewed nation-building as an evolutionary (yes, like Darwin) process in human development that favored larger states. His ‘threshold principle’ stated that small ‘nations’ could not be economically relevant. Nations were driven economically, typically tolerant of linguistic diversity within the state, as those groups were not threatening. Historians of the period saw the process of assembling larger nations to culminate in a globalized polity, assimilating cultures and language.
This essay on the subject of nations and nationalism does a great job with definitions. I was particularly interested in how the influence of language and culture is marginalized, and how nationalistic principles are created from above.
Hobsbawm argued that historians from the period 1830 – 1880 viewed nation-building as an evolutionary (yes, like Darwin) process in human development that favored larger states. His ‘threshold principle’ stated that small ‘nations’ could not be economically relevant. Nations were driven economically, typically tolerant of linguistic diversity within the state, as those groups were not threatening. Historians of the period saw the process of assembling larger nations to culminate in a globalized polity, assimilating cultures and language.
Hobsbawm began by talking about modernity, and how it has shaped the characterization of a nation. This work reflected the three phases of national movements discussed in Hobsbawm’s introduction to Nations and Nationalism since 1873. Hobsbawm states that in the 19th century, a nation basically meant protectionism. Hobsbawm mentions that if a community is large enough then it has to also pass three criteria to be considered a nation. It must have a common historic association, a long-established elite, and a capacity for conquest (page 37).
I agree with most of the comments that the work was a bit jumbled and I did not appreciate the writing style. I also agree with Hawk that the author did point out why one must pay attention to the way that history is communicated. I thought it was interesting that the author called revisionism anachronistic. History does seem to be a product of the time in which it is studied. The author also believes that there is not one truth, but historians create stories that make moral judgments. Periodization, causation, and space are constructs of the historian that can be stumbling blocks for truth. At times the author seemed to suggest that non-nations do not have a history.
Nations will struggle to secure their identity as boundaries blur from globalization. Duara presents examples of this blending of identities among nationalities and explains the need to interpret the interactions accordingly. I found his definition of the authentic to be useful: The authentic (the authenticity of a nation) is the unchanging truth that must be preserved by its members in the hinterlands.
The article gives another interpretation to the word “reconstruction.” It also gives credence to Hobsbwan’s notion that nationalism being created from above and viewed from below.
I would like to read an account of the degree of nationalism inherent in the Union soldiers. I just have a problem with this work as a stand alone argument- the argument is more complex than what is presented in the article.
Anderson provides a succinct characterization of nationalism that has promise for providing a useful tool for analyzing a lot of modern history. I thought his initial example did a good job of motivating how a lot of recent theory has not been able to give nationalism a deep treatment.
The chapter from Grant made interesting statements about the selective memory of Americans in remembering war. An emphasis is put on volunteerism rather than violence. The Revolution created the myths that formed the nation. Inheritance was not enough to hold the country together before the Civil War. Lincoln’s death pushed the myth even further. The author claimed that the “search for a usable past” is one of the defining features of the United States. The war needed to be viewed as holy, and a means of unification. Warfare and myths are important in forming the nation.
The author put forth an interesting argument, but I also fear that there was not enough evidence to support that kind of a claim. It does sound like an interesting debate that would simply require more study. Mindset seems to be a difficult phenomenon for a historian to study.
I think Hobsbawm is only trying to argue that history of nationalism is critical for understanding modern history. He views nationalism as an idea that only recently has had strong societal and political consequences. Among other things in this chapter, I found it valuable to consider that the concept of nationalism is useful for examining how nations coalesce, but only after they come into existence can we analyze the specific characteristics that contributed to successful national consciousness (cf page 9 of the Introduction).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I found Hobsbawm’s discussion of the liberal economic discussion of nationalism to be quite valuable. I think that this formulation provides insight into the way in which the concept of nationalism provides support for other existing trends, which is perhaps why the understanding of the qualities nationalism has shifted as the trends in exercising power have also changed.
If Hobsbawm’s goal was to reconstruct a “coherent liberal bourgeois theory of the nation,” I think he missed his own mark, he missed coherent.
Benedict Anderson’s introduction to his book got me to think ferociously. This is a good sign. His discussion about the vague nature of nationalism, ‘the nation’, and nationality made me ponder the different ways we understand our place in the world, how we relate to others, and how we understand and create identity. It also reminds me to be careful not to impose my modern assumptions about group identification and ways to legitimate political entities onto past periods. I would really like to read the entire book now.
The myth of the civil war as a struggle to ensure the maintence of liberty and democracy is demonstrated to be a central point around which American nationalism was formed. By maintaining a unified nation redeemed from the ills of the slave south the war becomes a crusade that serves to justify American expanison and militance as a conutation of a rightoues struggle.
The inability of the south to act as a unified nation and imbue its populace nationalistic fervor is argued to be part of cuase for confederate defeat. The lack of a shared history, or at least a history uniqely southern, is argued to have been insuffiecent to create a sense of unity among confederate states. Only fear of abolition unified the confederacy resulting in a lack of commitment to the cause and a willingness to end the fight floowing the liberation of slave populations.
My interpretation of this reading is that Duara uses both time and space to make an attempt to define the term ‘nation’. For the author, ‘nation’ is seen as a linear progression through time. Duara states that frontiers and borders are geographic areas which nationalism is weakest. The author also states that national authenticity is comprised of two spaces: 1 being the locality/countryside, 2 being the geobody or frontiers and peripheries of a defined national territory. Both spaces exist in a different temporality from modern cities, and are primitively romanticized as embodying civilizational values that the modern nation is in the process of losing.
This article was very interesting. It put a new perspective on the Confederate soldiers. I do believe that the author’s argument that for the Union had more of a nationalist attitude towards the war, while the Confederate soldiers may have not completed understood or had reason to fight.
I disagree with Hawk as far as the weakness of nationalism as a cause for Southern failure. The difference between separate and distinctive cultures emphasizes a regional mindset rather than nationalistic. The tie to a region is much less than to a nation, and I am sure that this difference would be expounded on further in the book if we were to read it.
I found this essay very interesting, and unlike many of my classmates, did not find any issue with his writing. Hobsbawm did a good job of showing how the idea of the nation is a new concept, which I have explained to high school students. I thought he articulated this much better than I have seen in other sources.
In response to Hawk’s question about an American perspective on Grant’s statements, I don’t think any of us can give THE American point of view. I disagreed strongly with the author’s attack on “American exceptionalism,” even qualifying the statement by including European nations. I think the US should be viewed by Americans as “a nation apart.” This is a special nation, and I say that not to take anything away from other nations. I also did not agree with her statement that Americans “have been unwilling to concede that violence rather than voluntarism played a central role in their national development.” I think that Americans generally are willing to confront the negative aspects of our history, but realize the potential of this nation. Failure in living up to a mythic ideal does not mean we should stop thinking of America as special. The myth is something to which Americans strive towards, and to disavow it would take away our direction. I think in dealing with the failure to live up to the “salvation drama” after the war, a greater point here would be the slowness of the American people to do so. I think it was Winston Churchill who said, “Americans will always do the right thing, after they’ve exhausted all other options.” Although, I don’t know which interpretation would be more negative to the nationalist mythology. On another note, the discussion of romanticism and pageantry towards the Civil War reminded me of Dr. Stauffer’s presentation on war photography.
I did not see what others were having trouble with Duara’s argument. The South was not truly a “nation,” and lacked the collective identity and unity to withstand the war. This seems very clear and logical, especially as argued by Duara. It is clearly only one of a multitude of factors, such as lack of an industrial base and the failure of the Confederacy to gain support from any European powers, as the colonists did in the Revolutionary War. On another note, the discussion of conflicted rationale among southeners for why they fought echoed the luncheon lecture of the Civil War conference, so this was clearly not just a Southern thing.
Faust is a good read. Especially interesting was his discussion of the importance of literacy in the creation of Southern Nationalism, and how in the absence of literacy how oral and song traditions spread the word and uplifted the cause of Southern Nationalism.
What I found most interesting is Faust’s argument that the South viewed secession as a means of continuing the pursuit of ideals laid out by the founding fathers, rather than a discontinuation of the established American tradition. To the south, it was the north which had strayed away from American ideals. Faust stated in chapter two that the south believed the north had perverted the original ideals of the forefathers, and the Confederacy was the consummation of the American dream.
On a separate note, also found some things in chapter five interesting (in part due to a recent academic overlap of the following in Dr. Souther’s HIS 511). I’m particularly speaking of Faust’s discussion of the south’s views on slavery, and the ways that the new Confederate nationalism propagated slavery. She mentions notions such as the nationalist identity believing that slavery was a benevolent institution, even for the slaves. This notion led to others including the myth of benevolent and just masters, and the myth of loyal slaves who preferred a life of slavery in the south rather than a life of liberty in the north.
There was a part I really liked on pages 27-28 where she says that the Confederacy could not simply be a group of people with common characteristics, it had to have a dynamic aspect that actively sough to accomplish its mission. I think that sums up a lot of the issues or problems that the South had in trying to create its identity and nationalism. It had to differentiate itself from the United States enough so that Southerners needed to breakaway.
One of the points that I found most intriguing was Faust’s claim that both the war effort and Confederate nationalism rested on popular support and therefore helped empower the populace. As such, the construction of a Confederate nation intrinsically changed the the pre-existing system. I guess this goes very well along with ideas we have read in recent articles about nationalism being an invented and imagined concept. Any newly defined concept is bound to upset a previously undefined reality.
I enjoyed Faust’s interpretation of how religion compromised the principles that held the nation together. That “peculiar institution” was a poor foundation to rest their principles upon. Saw that one coming.
Gallagher’s book made a number of persuasive arguments regarding how Southerners truly felt about the Confederacy. His premise that most Southerners viewed the Civil War as a struggle between good and evil in part explains why so many Confederates continued fighting. Additionally, Gallagher illustrates the importance of Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia in the minds of many steadfast Southerners. Lee and his men seemed to serve as a barometer for the war, and Gallagher has several examples of how people looked to Lee’s leadership as inspiration to carry on their own fight. Gallagher clearly is at odds with other historians who argue that Southerners viewed the war as a romantic lost cause. He also does not see internal strife as the primary factor for the South’s fate. Overall, I thought Gallagher made good use out of letters, newspapers, songs, and other materials to capture how the South felt during the war. I thought that Gallagher made a clear case that the South viewed the Civil War more as an emotional rollercoaster than a slow and punishing ride into the abyss.
Scholarship on the Confederacy’s loss in the Civil War is centered on a lack of nationalism in the South. In his introduction Gallagher states that while this was the case, it was not as widespread as some historians believe and was not severe enough to cause defeat. He instead points to evidence that shows a strengthening of national resolve to win the war as the conflict progressed: “Letters, diaries, and newspapers reveal a widespread expectation of Confederate success and tenacious popular will rooted in a sense of national community and closely attuned to military events.” Gallagher uses this evidence to show that morale was heightened due to Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia’s attempted military strategies and victories. In turn, he also sees pressures from the Confederate nation as influential in the type of strategies Lee and other Southern generals implemented. Gallagher is steadfast in his belief that the Confederacy maintained a strong sense of Nationalism until and after the war’s end.
In Chapter One Gallagher uses a quantitative approach to compare the North and South. His findings show that compared to the South the North utilized less manpower and resources. They suffered less in terms of disruption of their daily lives, economic hardships, the destruction of their land, casualties and injuries. In all of these areas, however, the South was completely devastated. He uses this as evidence to support his opinion that the South must have had a strong sense of Nationalism and devotion to their cause in order to continue fighting in spite of these tremendous hardships. Gallagher goes on to say that Southern weariness over the devastation of their land, depletion of their resources, loss of southern military-age men, and disruption of their way of life should not be mistaken for a weakening of nationalism.
In the next chapter 2 Gallagher mentions that scholars have either focused entirely on either military strategies or the home front as the causes for Confederate defeat. He chooses to merge these two approaches, saying that each sphere influenced and reacted to one another. Successes on the battlefield produced confidence in the Confederacy, from their laws to their money. In fact, Southerners used Lee and his army as a symbol for their cause to the extent that they wanted to see Lee in charge of the Confederacy rather than Davis. Soldiers used their influence over their southern morale: they wrote letters home and to newspapers in order to promote support, and Lee gave patriotic speeches that he knew would be circulated. In turn, nationalism prompted soldiers to re-enlist, women to pressure able-bodied men to fight or continue fighting, and even women to ask to be allowed to fight. Also, some historians use the Confederacy’s consideration of slave emancipation and arming them to fight as evidence that the South was beginning to doubt the institution of slavery or no longer wanted to fight for the cause themselves. Gallagher, on the other hand, see this as “an attachment to the idea of an independent Confederacy so strong that they were willing to tamper, at least to a degree, with their basic social structure.”
Chapter 3 discusses that because the Confederate armies had to “nourish popular will” they were limited in their battle strategies. They had to stick to the offensive in order to foster popular support and keep the support of southerners on the home front. Gallagher therefore claims that using the offensive or guerrilla warfare in order to win the war was not an option for the Confederacy. (look to page 127.)
Finally, in Chapter 4 Gallagher states that Confederates only admitted defeat because their military resources were depleted and they had no other option, not because they had lost their will to fight. To support this he uses evidence of loyalty to the Confederacy at the time of Lee’s surrender and after their loss.
I think Gallagher made a strong case for the presence of Confederate nationalism. He looks at Confederate military activity (Lee’s) as being the primary source of unifying national identity (imagined community). He shows how the southerners identified with the Confederacy as a ‘nation’ by noting how they referred to “our country,” etc. However, while using Lee and his military campaigns to show that identity was shared and moral was evident, I thought that the chapter on nationalism did not fully explain what it was there were rallying for.
Gallagher did an excellent job describing how the Confederate lost its momentum for the war effort. He details how nationalism applied to different groups in the South and just planters. Also I was amazed at how Southerners wanted to hold on to the idea of the Confederacy. Although there were signs that they would fail, and many grew tired of the war, they still believed that losing to the North would be a terrible reality.
I would have to say that I found Gallagher’s argument to be very compelling, simply on the fact that they were evideniary based arguments. While other authors we have read with reference to how the Confederacy lost the Civil War make arguments that the south lost due to a decline/lack of nationalism, Gallagher argues that their loss can be tangibly attributed to inferiority on the battlefield due to the fact that the north had abundant superior officers. Not only does he use evidence to support his claim, but he uses the same evidence to disprove the arguments of the other said authors. Most of the primary sources which he uses are very compelling because they emphasize the sentiment of the majority rather than simply the minority of planter elite.
In an effort to reword my last sentence:
I found most of Gallagher’s primary sources to be compelling because they emphasized the sentiment of the larger general public of the Confederacy, rather than focusing on the small number of planter elite.
He also made a point that he did not use the same sources which had been referenced so often before. If everyone looks at the same few sources they are bound to come up with similar conclusions. Gallagher looked at different sources. At least from his descriptions it seemed like he had a more inclusive view of the Confederacy.
Race is an American ideology that was inserted into our social terrain to legitimate the enslavement of Africans. It is perpetuated through communication. It persists because we point to it and acknowledge it.
The description of “ideology” was very insightful to (for) me.
Race is an American ideology that was inserted into our social terrain to legitimate the enslavement of Africans. It is perpetuated through communication. It persists because we point to it and acknowledge it.
The description of “ideology” was very insightful to (for) me.
I found it very interesting, and in keeping with my own interpretations of the Civil War, Gallagher’s focus on the importance of Lee. I have read in many sources the very real threat of a guerilla war had Lee not surrendered. However, I still do not agree with his conclusions as to the reality of Confederate nationalism. Also, the importance he played to the confederacy seems to me to be more of a “cult of personality” than evidence of nationalism. Gallagher clearly shows that some communal identity existed, but describing it as nationalism seems to be a stretch. I disagree, for instance, that the heavy losses on the South indicate strong nationalist identity with the Confederacy. This could just as easily be explained by the fact that the war was largely fought on Southern soil and meant that people were fighting for their homes and families, not necessarily “the Confederacy.” Gallagher unintentionally addresses this when he discusses the North’s morale on p.33. Furthermore, his use of Sherman’s thoughts on Confederate morale on p.57 do not necessarily describe nationalism, but people fighting to protect their homes and families. For example, referring back to Lee’s prominence, it should be addressed that Lee joined the South because he felt his primary duty to his home state, not the South as a whole.
I also wanted to disagree with Alan’s contention that historians using the same sources are “bound to come up with similar conclusions. Historians look at sources through their own filter, and can interpret evidence in very different ways. An example of this is the vastly different views historians have presented of the Protestant Reformation, which some of us have discussed at length in Dr. Lehfeldt’s class. I think of it like the “face/vase” optical illusion, where what you see is defined by what you focus on.
Gallagher refutes the idea that the confederacy failed due to a lack of nationialism and identity. He aruges that although evidence is present for divisions over class, issues of slavery, and questions of the religious justification for the war, the South showed strong sectional idientiy and dtermination. His evidience suggests that the South rallied around both the issue of slavery and the military success of the Army of Northern Virginia. Rather than lose fervor for the war effort, the majority of the south became more dtermined to fight as a result of the deprivations of war.
Many of my classmates touched on the general strengths and persuasiveness of Gallagher’s overall argument. Bill mentioned that while Gallagher does a good job of providing evidence for the fact that strong nationalism existed in the Confederacy, he did not examine the ideological components of this nationalism in depth. In this way I think this book nicely complements Faust’s book, as Faust spends most of her time examining the theoretical basis that the South presented for its own identity. Another aspect of Gallagher that I thought was interesting was the way in which he presented the South as having felt like it was defeated, rather than having lost because of some internal deficiency. This strengthens the argument of the continuation of the Confederate identity even after the war was over.
Gallagher used Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia to make his case for Nationalism. The fault in this is that the army was one part of the South, and represented the ideal of fighting for God and Country. Another problem is that Lee’s army was made up of mostly wealthy college educated planters and is not representative of all of the south. He had little literature from the yeomanry to give a clearer picture of their ideas and feelings of Nationalism. Embodying Southern nationalism in Lee’s army is at best symbolic. The were as Gallagher said symbols of hope.
Faust consistently presents interesting aspects of Confederate ideology that Southerners used to identify themselves in opposition to the Union, and then she shows how those points set up some sort of internal contradiction within the Confederacy. This raises the question of determining how to measure the strength of an existing nationalism. It could be argued that many longstanding national sentiments also possess internal inconsistencies, but that these inconsistencies do not get in the way of providing a basis for collective identification.
While people categorize themselves and others in order to determine self-identity, modern states use physical and symbolic force to name, identify, and categorize people by gender, religion, ethnicity, etc. By ‘assigning’ a collective identity to a group (by ethnic, gender, religious, economic categorization), a process begins where the state can map out the terrain on which the group will conform. I think that Faust would agree with this article. But I think she would also agree that the terrain can be changed.
The comment I submitted above was for the other Field’s article. But here Dr. Fields seems to be responding to criticism of “Slavery, Race and Ideology.” She stresses that the concept of racial inequality is ‘as American as apple pie.’ Race was invented in America to justify the enslavement of Africans in a society where all are created equal and have a right to self-determination. Her example showing the United States as unique among all other slave societies was very helpful (and insightful) to me.
In my opinion I thought Fields came off as scatterbrained and defensive. It was hard to follow because moments of rational clarity were often jumbled with strange line of thoughts and odd ball conclusions. I hope that this was a speech, because I cannot see this being submitted for publication in academic journals. Her vocabulary was at times sophomoric and sometimes unclear (cribbed? ballyhoo? not sure what they mean if anyone does please let me know). I disagreed with a lot of conclusions she made, for instance bondage doesn’t need to be justified as long as its natural. That is ridiculous, bondage is never justified unless in cases of criminal justice. I wonder if she is a Darwinist, because it sounds like something from that school of thought.
I agree that Fields did come off as scatterbrained, and I too was confused by the use of the word ‘cribbed.’ I found almost all of her arguments hard to follow.
I was able to deduce that Fields was very defensive, as you mentioned above, about her argument that racial ideology did NOT develop as a justification for slavery. According to Fields, the emerging notion of liberty during the era of the American Revolution also revealed American racism, and this racism was unique to the American institution of slavery.
I thought that this article was better written then the first. I agree with Bill’s definition of race and how it is an ideology. I think that there was way too much jargon in her article and that it would have been fine if she had one pop-culture reference instead of five or six that she used. I though she could have cut out the whole “Yes Virginia” metaphor without losing any of her argument.
The discourse on Islamic conversions among slaves in the Cape was interesting to me. I also took notice of the uniqueness of the lave system of the South, and I thought the author did a good job of showing that development.
I thought that the article was interesting especially on the differences of indentured servants and debt bondsmen.
This was not a fun read, but I believe I got the gist of it. The authors’ thesis is that the term “identity” has been overused and attached to many different definitions. This has caused the word to be devalued of meaning and has caused ambiguity when used in the context of political and social analyses. To prove their point the authors present five definitions to which “identity” has been attached: self understandings that govern individual or group action; a sense of collectiveness or sameness among members; an aspect of “selfhood” that is used in the psychological sense; “a product of social or political action”; and a fluctuating sense of self. Brubaker and Cooper then offer their own suggestions for terms to attach to these definitions. First is identification and categorization – terms deferential from “identity” because they are processes rather than conditions. In the process of identification an identifier must be named, and either the individual, a powerful agent (state, political groups, etc.), or anonymously by “our ways of thinking and making sense of the world” categorizes the individual. Next is self-understanding: “one’s sense of who one is, of one’s social location, and of how (given the first two) one is prepared to act.” Self-understanding can take many forms and is culturally specific, not universally specific. And finally, the authors give us three related terms – connectedness, commonality and groupness. “‘Commonality’ denotes the sharing of some common attribute, ‘connectedness’ the relational ties that link people. Neither commonality nor connectedness alone engenders ‘groupness’ – the sense of belonging to a distinctive, bounded, solidary group.
I personally liked this article very much. I thought she is very clear and enjoyable to read. In fact, she is a lot more clear than my explanation below. What I got from the article overall is that race as an American ideology did not emerge due to differing physical characteristics of people. Instead, historical experience that created a common law or rules of behavior among groups, as well as situations of the time (in 17th century America), relegated Africans and those of African descent to an oppressed position. They then became received as inferior by nature.
I think what I liked the most about Gallagher’s was the introduction of an different view and interpretation regarding Confederate nationalism. Instead of focusing exclusively on nationalism, this aspect was instead set in the larger discussion of why the South lost the war. Although I did not find myself convinced of all his statements, and found both his arguments and the pool of sources open to further discussion, I find myself unwilling to dismiss his claims out of hand. Particularly fascinating was the idea of instead of asking why the South lost the war, to ask how they managed to keep fighting for as long as they did. Also, the argument about General Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia as central to Confederate nationalism and will to fight was very intriguing, and I think well argued.
Roediger’s book deals with the formation of identity based on race, and how this corresponds with the development of a working class in the US. Roediger therefore traces the development of both phenomenons from early colonial times through Reconstruction. I must admit that I find his argument much more intriguing than much of his methodology. The more traditional look at struggle and identity between groups, across class- and racial lines, is both interesting, effective, and quite convincing. The large reliance on changes in the use of language to prove his points, however, makes for assailable evidence. Or, at the lease, I wish he would increase the range and width of his evidence base.
The worst part, however, was a number of psycho-analytical bouts which seemed to claim the ability to interpret and establish the motivations, desires, and rationale of historical groups and people. This annoyed me. I just don’t think it was an effective or convincing way to buttress the argument.
I think that Fredrickson’s point is best summed up in his statement that “The degradation of non-whites frequently served to bind together the white population, or some segment of it, to create a sense of community or solidarity that could be become a way of life and not simply a cover for economic exploitation.” The descriptions of the enslavement of Native Americans, indentured servitude, and African enslavement were well examined.
What I got from the article is that Fredrickson believes that circumstances that had nothing to do with skin color led to the enslavement of African blacks. Problems with indentured servitude of whites made black slavery attractive to plantation owners for reasons such as willingness to perform certain jobs and the availability of land for freed servants. Once black slaves replaced white servants, their status led feelings that theirs was an inferior race. In other words, racism developed because of enslavement, not the other way around.
Woops, I did the same thing Bill did and submit the comment under the wrong heading. The above was intended for Field’s article, not her interview.
I enjoyed Fields’ description that “radical affirmation of freedom” created a need for a “radical affirmation of bondage.” She continued to say that God was a higher way of reasoning, but after emancipation science (biology) was used. Her discussion of agency was interesting as well.
The article by Fields was entertaining. I enjoyed her remarks about the Three Fifths Compromise and the way it was written about in a school book. Sometimes one does not fully observe the way race is portrayed in society. She did a good job to explain the way in which the ideology of race was formed and has changed today.
The paragraph on the Three Fifths Compromise was enlightening. I remember being taught that the clause distinguished black from white, therefore, it was very interesting for me to find out that it actually distinguished free persons from slaves. This actually demonstrates Fields’ point of the American ideology on race.
What I found very interesting in Fredrickson’s article was the relationship between heathenism and slavery. He explains that heathenism at one point qualified people for slavery, and justified their enslavement. The Dutch even recognized that slaves, no matter what race, should be emancipated if they adopted Christianity, thus making Christianity incompatible with slavery. The fact that until 1664 slaves were emancipated in Massachusetts for converting to Christianity serves as evidence that slavery was not an inherently racist institution in the colonies and the Cape, but evolved over time to promote the notions of white supremacy which we associate with the American form of slavery.
I am not sure if I am completely convinced by Roediger argument that racism came to existence for working white class as wage labor became more popular. I believe that racism is factor of many different ideologies. While Roediger makes a convincing argument that capitalist (employers) profit from racism by forming a common bond with their workers, whiteness. Yet, if this is true, if whiteness and racism go hand in hand then why are the capitalist racist? They are not competing with blacks so why are they?
Overall, I think Fields made some incredibly interesting assertions during this somewhat scattered interview. Specifically, Fields makes a claim that slavery needed justification in the US because there was a constant expectation of freedom. I found it insightful that she compared the US to Brazil and Russia to show that slavery was not so systematically under attack in other places. In addition, Fields claims that scientific racism had its heyday after emancipation which runs counter to what most people would assume. These claims demonstrate that Fields is a scholar who is willing to make grand and somewhat controversial claims which probably explains why she begins the talk with a defensive tone.
I found this article to be very persuasive and was impressed with how vehement Fields was that race was an ideology. I enjoyed her discussion of how society as a whole typically only refer to race when it involves African Americans, but ignore such categories when it is someone of obvious European descent. Her discussion of why African slaves became favored in the Americas is also intriguing. Fields makes a somewhat obvious point that it is easy to view people as naturally inferior when they are artificially oppressed. Her definition of ideology was also useful because the word is very flexible and sometimes our own ideology affects how we define it. Wow, that statement probably means I should take a break from reading.
I thought a critical aspect of Roediger’s argument was that racism in the labor market is reinforced from both above and below. In other readings, I feel that many historians have focused mostly on the undoubtedly evil schemes of capitalists without making much mention of how white workers perpetuated racism. I found his discussion of the evolution of racist language useful, but I do agree with Hawk that it can only illustrate so much. In addition, I found Roediger’s argument convincing that racism evolved because whites needed to distinguish themselves more from oppressed free blacks and enslaved Africans. The discussion of minstrel shows and whites going to festivals in blackface alludes to the reality that racism was pervasive. Roediger’s claim that whites were in some ways envious of blacks in their supposed “looseness” was a somewhat incomplete thought. However, Roediger did make an interesting observation that whites in blackface were often given leeway by racist police officers during race riots and other random attacks. Overall, I think the book asked more questions than it answered which is probably why it has received so much praise and criticism.
In all of the history I have read, I have never heard it argued that the white indentured servants viewed themselves as sharing a common status in society with the black slaves as Roediger argues. How peculiar it is that the white indentured servants receive their freedom, and later proceed to argue that black slaves are not fit to live in a democracy.
An additional interesting aspect of Fredrickson’s account is the way in which England was already starting to consider a type of slavery for poor (white) people on the island. This gives a strong indication of the way in which economic considerations are a driving factor in creating social barriers between groups.
Fredrickson makes a good argument for economics as a cause of institutional and societal racism. If enslaving poor whites and indigenous people were cost effective then colonial governments and white slave owners would have continued down that path.
It will be interesting to contrast Fields’ examples of Brazil and Russia with Fredrickson’s example of South Africa. Fields does make some very interesting points, and along the way suggests strongly that understanding racism closely parallels understand many other things in American society.
I also found her hard to follow and disagreed with her from the start. She claimed that “Freedom did not become possible for American of European descent until they had established slavery for Americans of African descent. Her premise seems to be that only by enslaving black did whites become free — what, really. Elite whites would have enslaved anyone they could irregardless of race.
Fredrickson provides some great, basic background information about the development of slavery in the US South and the Cape colony in South Africa. His main approach appears to be to look for something like the ideological roots of white supremacy in the institution of slavery. As such, he suggests that slavery was first a matter of European tradition through warfare, prisoners of war, and even the enslavement of vagabonds and other elements of the poor. As these traditions died out, religious justifications for the enslavement of others came to the forefront, as heathens could readily be enslaved. Later on, as some slaves converted to Christianity, the language and ideas of legitimization of slavery evolved further, until it started to take on racial tones. Finally, the repetitive tradition of keeping blacks enslaved provided the ideological notion that allowed people to equate blacks with slavery, or blacks with inferiority to whites. At least this is what Fredrickson seems to suggest. Personally, I am not a big fan of comparative studies like this, but I can appreciate some of the points Fredrickson managed to get across utilizing that approach.
Either this interview is brilliant in its sharp statements, assertions and analysis, or, it is an argument made in a very convincing and clever-sounding way. Either way, I find myself greatly fascinated by some of the statements presented. For instance, Fields’ statement that the need to justify slavery only became necessary once freedom came to be seen as a natural right is superb. Not only does it cut to the core of the great contradiction of the American Revolution – a struggle for freedom that kept millions in bondage – but it challenges notions that people prior to this time felt a great need to justify the enslavement of others. Furthermore, it is into this context that Fields presents the concept of a developing racial ideology. The invention of race and racial ideology thus becomes part of the ambition of the dominant group to achieve certain goals while retaining certain other privileges. It is a great introduction to discussions regarding the invention of race and racial ideology.
I find Fields’ attempt at declaring ‘race’ an ideology, and separating people from racial identities to be very engaging. Her style of writing is assertive, strong, and asks to be accepted at face value. Whether we do or not is a different matter, although I must admit that I tend to accept a lot of it.
I find the discussion about the importance of customs in the struggle for rights as particularly intriguing. In parts because it is shown to relate to the relationship between masters and slaves, but also because it is shown in the relationship between lower- and upper classes.
I agree with Heidi that this was a tough read. Very heavy on particular theory, making it difficult to keep concepts and ideas apart from each other. I can appreciate the importance of recognizing and dealing with conceptions about the term ‘identity’, what we mean by it, and how it can be utilized.Even so, I cannot help but feel that it could have been presented in a more accessible format.
I came away from this book with a strong sense of ‘the other.’ It seemed to be an account of ethnic groups’ struggle to ‘rise above’ at the expense of others. Since the ideal life was as an agent free from being bound to market forces, working ‘groups’ wrestled with the notion that they were were not slaves to forces that held them to labor. It had to be shown that they were freely participating in economic activities in pursuit of attaining…whatever it is that they wanted to attain. As in the possibility of social, economic, and political mobility.
Arneson’s article was an interesting critique of Roediger. He went to great lengths to show the methodologies employed by historians to reveal how African Americans viewed their position within the labor ranks in regards to race and class. He then points out flaws in Roediger’s treatise and cautions that, while it had valid points, each of its conclusions should be tested empirically with consideration to spacial and historical context. I took stock with Roediger’s work, and am persuaded by the concept of whiteness. I think that, to some degree, he backed up his arguments well.I also agree with Arnesen in that Roedeger painted with broad strokes and his conclusions are only part of the overall landscape. I also think that can be said of any approach.
Roediger’s book was very thoughtprovoking, and I can definitely understand the impact that it had on historiography considering what in the early 1990s was a very unique way of examining the issues of race and class in America from colonial times through Reconstruction. Having said that I found that his methodology and thoroughness left something to be desired. He acknowledged in his preface the risks of interdisciplinary scholarship, but that does not relieve him from responsibility for his amateur psychology which dominated much of the text. I have taught psychology for years and always warn my students that it is a bad idea to attempt to practice psychology unless you are qualified. Roediger admits that he is not an expert in psychology, yet he attempts to diagnose groups of people throughout the book. Also, I found that he did not address any of the subjects he addressed in his book thoroughly enough. It seemed to me that most chapters could have been expanded into individual books. One thread throughout his book that I found particularly interesting was the etymology and evolution of language as it pertains to race. As his book was very short, I do not see why he could not have expounded on it more, perhaps devoting a chapter or two just to the power and evolution of identifying language and slurs. This would have supported his argument, and as he was not following strict chronology in his organization, would have fit into the format. Despite my issues with the book, along with what he addressed other readers finding issues with, I found this book very useful in promoting discussion andd it clearly furthered scholarship, as he notes many other historians have taken up his argument and ran with it, or rebutted it.
In a book review I read, the reviewer made similar comments about his arguments being weak yet had potential to be strong if he had simply expanded them by adding a couple of chapters. Apparently, Roediger took note because the newest version of his book contains an afterword where he admits the books shortcomings.
Personally, I just can’t buy in to his argument that white American workers didn’t view Europeans as white. I feel this way in part due to Field’s argument that the U.S. created the ideology of a single race, the ‘negro’ race as she puts it. As we discussed Tuesday, she argues that the U.S. doesn’t distinguish racial differences among any other groups of people; its ‘negroes’ and every one else.
If Roediger were to say that white Americans discriminated against European working-class immigrants due to their nationality, I would have bought his argument. I guess it just comes down to semantics.
Identity as a concept and a tool for analysis is argued to be too vague to be effective to be properly descriptive or do theoretical work. Rather than rely on a term that can have “hard” meanings suggesting immutability and essentialist interpreations the authors advocate for a more careful choice of words. instead they argue for “identification” as it requires an identifier etiher implicit or explicit. This differntiates whether the identifier is internal or external and helps clarify whether it is used in relationships or as catagories for analysis. a “soft” choice of words, “self-understainding”, “self-reprsentation” and similar terms are shown to better serve in situations in which the classification is subjective, and contextual rather than an objective and fixed category.
The manner in which racial and class based identities are constructed is a topic often explored independent of each other. Concepts of what it means to belong to a race, the notions of what race is, and how people are aligned with a racial category do not automatically include a class component in their analysis. Similarly, understandings of class, its basis as a relative position decided by wealth or as a fixed position defined by birth and the development of class-consciousness are not always studied with race is a component. When they are approached together, the role of race is frequently subsumed under the creation of class. However, as David R. Roediger asserts in The Wages of Whiteness class and racial identities are inextricably linked and cannot be understood separately. He argues that in rapid industrialization of nineteenth century America the development identifications as white and as working class occurred together in response to dramatic social and financial changes.
In Roediger’s short autobiography he says that his youthful experiences could have set him down the path of the average white worker. His prides himself on not becoming the average white working class kid. He claimed his experiences led him to examine how “whiteness became so important to white workers.” I do not believe he answered his own question. The beginning of his book is an interesting lesson in how language and the meaning of words changed. His later discussion of minstrel shows an extension of language but does not answer his own question. I agree he left much unanswered.
It seems that those that debated against whiteness were armed with an arsenal of citations to refute it as a category of historical analysis. However, I am persuaded by the overall concept of whiteness. Certainly not as an end all to be all, but as another way (among many) to understand why there is division within labor, and how it is influenced by (constructed) race. I agree with Arnesen that by itself it is not a useful category, but does any historical approach hold up entirely on its own merit? Arnesen calls whiteness a metaphor for power. But is whiteness an ideal? Possibly a nationalistic principle? I do not know why socialism does not exist in the United States. But it doesn’t. Labor factions contain members that share commonalities. Whiteness, to me, provides part of a complex set of interactions involved in race/class relations. I agree with Brody in noting Roediger’s “single truth-that working-class formation in America is entangled in white racial identity,”…whether the workers/immigrants see themselves as white-or not.
I found the article very clearly written, and easily discernible. I enjoyed the process of forming hegemony, and once formed, how leadership and domination must maintain equilibrium. I found the comparison of England and France in the development of their respective social orders.
I think Althusser was saying that institutions direct individual’s actions (behaviors) by shaping their beliefs though ritual. Any action of a subject is a response to an ideology. When I pray- religious ideology. When I stop at a red light- legal ideology. When, or how, I blog- communication ideology. There is a proper way to blog and is governed by the appropriate ideology. We are governed by the ideology of the state.
That’s all I’ve got.
Fields remarked that ideology has different meanings to different people with different experiences. She wonders how historians buy into a shared Southern ideology. While she was persuasive about how different groups developed their views of white supremacy, I thought she was going to establish the origins of race, which, unless I missed it, she didn’t.
In arguing that race was historical, I thought that Fields was going to point to the origin, but alas, she did not. I did take notice of her observation that ideology has different meanings to different people sharing different experiences, and wondering how historians buy into a shared Southern ideology. Her analysis of Reconstruction perpetuation of racism was interesting.
In order to recreate historical events in film as an historian does in print would require a film of excessive length. After all, chapter one of this book required 74 end notes. I see the value of cinematic history as investigating film for the attitudes of the film’s contemporary culture.
I found it interesting that Ken Burns criticized Glory and suggested that his Civil War documentary was a closer representation of the era. There is some truth there, but Ken Burns had to use 10 hrs to make his point and Glory had only 2.
It is very interesting how often Toplin apologizes for the weaknesses that he admits are present in cinematic history, in the interest of enabling these films to reach a broad enough audience to enable their financial success. He describes a litany of distortions, simplifications, and outright falsifications. (“Moviemakers often manipulate the historical record …” (47))
This is one of the criticisms that we level at professional histories, though. John Arnold stressed that history is the combined art and discipline of telling “true stories”, which means that historians construct a narrative that they are responsible for justifying as closely as possible with the available evidence. This still means that there are (many) aspects of the truth of the past which will forever remain in shadow. That said, Toplin describes practices in cinematic history that do not reflect the same sense of responsibility with the evidence, and if we should explicitly educate ourselves about the limitations of rigorous attempts to write history, we should much more strongly include a warning label on cinematic history, for the very good reasons that Toplin describes.
Now I do really want to see “Ride with the Devil”, though.
I found this essay eay to read and enjoyed how the authors actually agve examples of how scholars should use alternate terms to identity. Now the goal is to try and relate it to oour past readings. In my opinion the work of Brubaker and Cooper can be used to understand the concept of “Confederate Nationalism”. After reading nthis article I beleive that Fuast’s book is a prime example of how an an attempt to idenitfy a group is between the “hard” and “soft”.
Arnesen presented a very interising historiogrpaghy of race and labor in the UNited States. He pointed out many of the concerns we had with Roediger’sn work in our class discussion. After Brubaker’ article it would be beneficial if there was a study that examined the “identity” of working and middle class African-Americans, and if there was a true differnce between the two groups.
I felt that Faust was able to explain the idea of the creation of Southern “nationalism” and how a lack of an oral history or tradition was unable to bring the confederate south a sense of pride.
This book was a good book which had good arguments. Gallagher was able to composite a war between good and moral beliefs (south) against the people who did not adhere to their facets of life (north). By showing the confederacy unwilling to give up and continued to fight until all hope was lost. Gallagher also stressed the importance of General Lee and his fighters as representing the army that will save the south.
I liked how Fredrickson emphasized the importance of the poor and believed that the poor would be able to make up the indentured servants almost eliminating the need for African based slavery.
I agree with most people, I felt that this was and had the potential to be better but she seemed to be as others put it scatterbrained. She did have good ideas though as racial inequalities are a normal way of life.
I felt that her definition of race was a great way to show how as Americans is was easy to legitmize slavery, and slave based societies.
First i have to say that I was excited to read a book like this that looks at the blue collar American. A group that I connect with, but upon reading it was very disappointed with how the book read. He tried very hard to analyze the different classes and he did a good job at it. Alas, I just could not get into the book.
Fields did an excellent job of showing how race was a crreation and now is an ideology. when I was first reading this I almost thought it was a historiographic essay on race. However, I was not able to understand her point of view regarding Reconstruction and race, in the final section of the essay.
In order to be successful, cinematic movies typically follow a three-part cycle and fall within a certain genre that is familiar to audiences. Historic Hollywood films are criticized for their lack of accuracy, omission of information, and approaches that do not follow the trends of historical scholarship. However, Toplin points out that if the creators of historical movies attempted to make their films in a way that would please scholarly critics, they could alienate audiences and find little success in theaters.
In order to be successful, cinematic movies typically follow a three-part cycle and fall within a certain genre that is familiar to audiences. Historic Hollywood films are criticized for their lack of accuracy, omission of information, and approaches that do not follow the trends of historical scholarship. However, Toplin points out that if the creators of historical movies attempted to make their films in a way that would please scholarly critics, they could alienate audiences and find little success in theaters.
I’m glad Bill found Gramsci to be easily discernible. I personally found the readings quite dense and needed to read through them more than once. I find the section about hegemony the clearest and also most intriguing. It is not hard to see the Marxist views throughout.
Unlike Bill, I found Gramsci’s writing to be quite dense and hard to get an understanding of. I have read through it more than once now and think I am starting to get the main ideas. I think the section on hegemony is the clearest and also most convincing. It is also easy to see the Marxist views throughout.
Althusser’s article seems to build on Gramsci’s ideas. The State Apparatus and Ideological State Apparatus fit in with Gramsci’s ideas bout dominatio’ and intellectual and moral leadership as parts of hegemony. Gramsci’s view of the state as an educator also seems to connect with Althusser’s ideas.
Kolchin’s historiographic analysis of ‘whiteness studies’ does a great job at pointing at the strengths and the weaknesses of the field. I especially appreciate Kolchin bringing up he issue of scholars mixing historical analysis with prescriptive advice.
With regard to Allen’s comment, Toplin also inferred that Ken Burns’ criticisms of “Glory” acted as quasi-promotional for his own documentary on the Civil War. While Burns’criticism of “Glory” may have been justified, I would have to say they should be taken with a grain of salt.
With regard to John’s comment, “Ride With The Devil” seems like it would be an interesting film. I found it interesting how Toplin examined why “Ride With The Devil” was economically unsuccessful. One of the points he mentions is that it lacked a clear antagonist/protagonist and message. This is reminiscent of historical interpretation in a public setting, which aims to unbiasedly inform and educate so that the audience can draw their own conclusions. While this method may seem more enticing to historians, much of the public is more interested in the novelty of story and drama, which is what I interpreted Toplin’s general argument to be.
Bill> she briefly discusses the origins of racial ideology on pages 161-2. Or, some of the ideological realities that allowed slavery to become connected to race. Is that what you had in mind when talking about the origins of race?
I really appreciate Fields’ ideas about the nature and origins of ideologies – that ideologies are the ways which people experience and understand reality, and that they exist within a social and cultural context. The way she applies these concepts to American history is an approach that opens up new interpretations, understanding, and discussion.
I thought Gramsci’s article was an easy read, although with people posting on his section with comments about other authors, I hope that this will be in the right place. I found the article very philosophical and felt that I have read it somewhere before. I thought the “state as the educator” was an interesting concept, but i doubt its practicality. In other words I fear that without a private sector for education then the people might turn in to mindless drones of the government. I guess that’s the liberal in me.
The misplaced articles are my fault. I corrected a couple of dates, which were out of order, and that caused some of the posts to become attached to wrong reading. It is a quirk with Digress.It. Sorry for the confusion.
The Kolchin article brought up some fairly reserved criticisms of whiteness studies without completely being dismissive of its aims or approach. Kolchin does take issue that these scholars often see race as a central aspect of historical interaction while arguing throughout their works that it is entirely arbitrary. I can see how he arrived at this being a contradiction, but I think he may be holding onto language too dearly with this criticism. Also, Kolchin seems to take issue with whiteness scholars because they are often prescriptive regarding solutions to racism. He intimates that “wearing your heart on your sleeve” makes a scholar less capable of constructing a sober historical account. I did agree with Kolchin that accepting all of the whiteness perspective prevents us from giving other forms of oppression their due. Overall, I think Kulchin made some careful observations about the field and refrained from the antagonistic language that somewhat marred Arnesen’s critique.
100 years ago, women in both Great Britain and America had been demanding an equal say in government and voting rights for quite some time (see the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments, 1848). In both countries there was much support, even by men. This being the case, I believe that the SCRIPT (disregarding some of the more scandalous scenes) would have been conceivable, especially because it showed Elizabeth submissive to men initially and then becoming stronger as the movie progressed. I believe this to be the case because women’s rights supporters and leaders during that half a century were challenging their political positions, but not challenging their social positions to as great of an extent. For this same reason, while I believe the script could have been written, by perhaps a strongly liberal women’s rights supporter, I do NOT believe that the film would have been made. There would have been too much opposition by both men AND women.
The second wave of feminism called for women to break free from the gendered roles had been filing. They wanted equal footing with men, not only in the realm of politics, but society as well. More men were beginning to support the movements as well. The second wave also promoted sexual freedom for women – which is necessary for the movie to have been made then as it is now.
As for the last question, my best guess is that the some people in the UK are worried that joining with other European nations under the same currency would threaten its sovereignty. Others believe it would give the country more economic stability within Europe. Perhaps the movie reflected this by putting a lot of emphasis on Elizabeth’s refusal to marry. Joining with another country may have offered England more strength or security, but it threatening its sovereignty. (I drew these conclusions based on an article I looked up called the “The great euro debate” from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3008201.stm)
Great analysis. I wanted to add on to the discussion of the Euro debate. Whether it was intentional or not the film plays up the idea that I believe many English and (now the UK) have toward differentiating themselves from the continent of Europe. A part of their nationalism (I guess) is that they do not view themselves as European. The English Channel separates them; and even though it is a relatively small barrier it is an important one. In the movie Elizabeth’s refusal to unify the country with another European power could be used to reinforce the still present feelings, especially in debates over the Euro and the European Union.
Eric Arnesen in his article Whiteness and the Historians’ Imagination, seems to hold a rather firm position that Whiteness Historians are not contributing anything new to the field of history. In Roedigers’ book, The Wages of Whiteness, I found it interesting to see how he traced the meaning of words such as servant through history, and demonstrated how such words came to hold different meanings as time progressed.
Robert.
Althusser asserts that the ruling class asserts its hegemony in part with Ideological state apparatuses like schools, churches, unions, political parties and more. These form a part of the physical manifestations of ideology as they represent material practices and rituals that serve as a physical expression of instilling the ruling class’s ideology.
Kolchin made use of a very interesting quote on page 158 of Benjamin Franklin from 1751. Franklin basically states that Anglo-Saxons are the only white population. To me, this places Roediger’s argument about Irish-immigrant workers as non-white into context. Almost a century prior to the events in Roediger’s book, the notion of other Europeans as non-white has already been established in North America.
These collections were meant to give a critical review on the studies of Whiteness Historians, especially how these relate and are useful to labor historians. Eric Arnesen is definitely not a fan of Whiteness studies as the are now conducted. He slams Roediger quite often. He does bring up a great point about Whiteness historians psychoanalyzing white workers when they have no voice. James Barrett is a little more optimistic about the potential for Whiteness studies, but also says that it still need a little work.
Fields posits racial ideology as a set of ideas that allowed white people to perceive blacks as inferior although the exact nature of inferiority took on different forms depending on the point of view of whites. The status of blacks as free or slave, the relationship of whites and blacks in regards to class or occupation, and regional differences in economy and physical proximity of groups all influenced the exact manifestation of racial ideology. Racialist views cannot be viewed as the same over time and space and as having the same significance among the various classes of whites. Although a belief in the inferiority of blacks in all of its iterations allowed the ruling class to use racism for its own ends, it is historical to view racial ideology as a unifying belief in American history.
Kolchin’s assessment of whiteness studies illustrates the usefulness of examining how racial identity is created and its impact on historical change, specifically its role in shaping class or other group interests. However, he points out that race becomes a pervasive force in whiteness studies and is overly used to explain the past and that developing a white identity is a ubiquitous phenomenon that shaped history without regards to the context of geography, ethnicity, class or other considerations.
I thought David Brody’s argument that Roediger wrote a charismatic history was interesting. He defined Charismatic History as something that comes out and is revelatory. It is widely read and cited. However, when it becomes truly criticized its fortunes turn quickly. Brody feels that Arnesen does not give Roediger enough credit for beginning, or at least popularizing, whiteness. Brody does maintain criticizes about Roediger’s approach, but seems to generally feel that Arnesen is too harsh. I had never truly considered the phenomenon that Brody calls Charismatic History, but it is intriguing.
As I read Toplin’s article, I found the comparison to the judgment of cinematic historians to football coaches. As a football coach, this really jumped out at me. I often hear criticism of film history that seems to nitpick, and expect films about history to ignore the commercial and storytelling aspects of movies. Films should definitely be taken with a grain of salt, but they offer an opportunity to explore the subject addressed. A great example is our movie night with Elizabeth. The questions and discussions after the film addressed a lot of the perceived weaknesses of history movies, but I came away with a much greater understanding of Elizabeth and Tudor England, and asked questions that I would not otherwise have thought to ask. The film definitely had historical flaws, but watching films like it also brings interest in looking into other sources. I also thought the discusiion of history and genre was veyr interesting, and showed how social context can influence film, which we also discussed in terms of Elizabeth. Plus, the discussion of parody mentioned Mel Brooks, who is my personal favorite. I also have used excerpts from History of the World, Part I in my own classes to begin discussions.
Iggers discussed major historical developments from 1945 to 1989. The authors then examined evolving trends in the French Annales School, German scholarship to social science, Marxist changes and recognition of difficulties, and trends of Postmodernism. Postmodernism discussed the “cultural turn” in micro-history, historical anthropology, oral history and memory, the history ‘workshop’ movement, and feminist and gender history. Postmodernism was the most interesting development in that is encompasses major trends in the United Stated today. The contrast of broad structural history with postmodern approaches such as micro-history was especially interesting.
With the short historiographical essay still fresh in my mind, I can help but think of the German ‘Historismus’ as a form of nationalism. Iggers explains that the ‘Historismus’ was brought into question by Germans in order to find out why Germany had diverged from the path of other Western nations. He uses Wehler as an example, showing how he viewed German history through the lens of social science.
I can’t believe that it was not until 1990 when women became “important” to historical writing. I guess we never existed as a fundamental part of society until recently.