Critical Problem Of Selective Reliance On Secondary Historiographical Sources Essay

In The Death of History is Bunk, Patrick Watson argues that the decrease of historical content in the curriculum does not indicate that history, as a subject, is declining. While many complain about the decreasing prominence of history classes in Canadian schools, the content of those classes is excessively dull as it consists of memorizing lists of facts. Despite this, there are still protests that knowledge of “defining events” is required to contribute to “the National Conversation”. However, history is not so simple as a list of events—it is the sum of the small happenings in society around the events. A whole variety of factors influence history, which is created by the common people. Unlike Americans, who turn to their constitution for

In “The Essential Historiography Reader” by Caroline Hoefferle, and “The Penguin History of Europe” by J.M. Roberts, both authors write about what “modern history” is. Hoefferle, breaks down the evolution of history and how its recorded into three different periods of time. She starts with ancient history, then moves into medieval and finishes with modern history. Roberts, believes that modern history was shaped in three centuries. Both authors agree on what modern history is, but only Hoefferle really goes into detail about the transition from how history was recorded in the ancient world up until the evolution of modern history.

Many people do not care for history due to the simple fact some of the readings in the textbook are not all interesting or true. Not every textbook is the same, not every textbook has accurate information, but most history classes require you to read and learn everything from the textbooks. As you read this essay, you will learn how a couple of different texts discusses the finding of Virginia and about the Indians. Each of these texts are not written in the year so there will be some discussion on the years each was written. Just remember, not all textbooks are the same, in fact, most of them have different facts that may not be all accurate.

The Enlightened Archaeologist – an article authored by Jeffrey Hantman and Gary Dunham chronicles Thomas Jefferson’s investigation of the Indian burial mound located on the South Fork of the Rivanna River in the 18th century. The site excavated by Jefferson, however, is no longer visible, most likely due to dissipation by inevitable natural occurrences (I.E. excessive rainfall, flooding rivers, etc.) or human activity such as farming. The “Father of American Archaeology” correctly predicts the latter in his book, Notes on the State of Virginia, in which he states, mounds “…put under cultivation are much reduced in their height, and spread in width, by the plough, and will probably disappear in time” (1787). Fortunately for Archaeologists of the late 20th century (1988) an Indian burial mound identical to that of the one Jefferson described in his book was uncovered just 14 miles from the South Fork of the Rivanna River.

1.) Read the following document, “Another Race of White Men Come Amongst Us”: Native American Views as British Replace the French in the Lower Mississippi Valley, 1765

Typically, I treat seemingly reputable historical analysis as fact, and only when pressed do I ponder the author’s motives and intensions. Even less often, do I question the political perceptions of the organizers of chronicled archives. The sifters, and eventual arbiters of what historical ephemera should live on. How did archives form? They are not compiled by an unemotional artificial intelligence that omnisciently records all global human action. Moreover, to address the specific example provided by Sternhell, it becomes obviously that the victors of various wars and political squabbles possess more sway in how a historical record is remembered. The Union was victorious in the American Civil War, and thus it was the leaders of the Union who got to pose the seemingly apolitical presentation of history, which was obviously political in the very nature of its construction. This information provided by Yael Sternhell, provides a concrete example of what Carr explored in The Historian and His Facts. Carr argued that there was no purely objective history, that instead, it was the historian that chooses to emphasize whatever he deems appropriate to

With our history, perspective is key. When reading about a certain speech or event it is important to make sure you have a reliable source. Sometimes primary sources are scarce, so secondary sources will be needed. Sometimes the sources can clash with each other, making it hard to tell what is true and not. Different perspectives of historic events can dampen understanding of the true message given when personal bias and dim perspectives are applied. Our history is being influenced by secondary sources rather than the real message of the primary source.

“The American Political Tradition” published in 1948 was written by a well-known historian at Colombia University. Richard Hofstadter was born on August 6, 1916, in Buffalo, New York. He attended both the University of Buffalo and Columbia University where he studied philosophy and history. Hofstadter was married twice and later in 1970 died from leukemia. Throughout his life Hofstadter had a lot of published works including Social Darwinism in American Thought, William Leggett, Spokesman of Jacksonian Democracy, The Age of Reform, The United States: the History of a Republic, and many more. Hofstadter’s purpose for writing this book was to give people a better understanding about our history. He wanted to help Americans understand who was

The two historical documents, Narrative of Lavinia Bell written by an anonymous author in the Montreal Gazette and the Letter to an English Abolitionist by James Henry Hammond, shared their strong opinions on the important issue of slavery. These documents were written in the 1800’s during an era of progressive changes. One can identify similarities and many differences in their opinions, motives, and goals for their writings. I believe Bell’s account was written to show the perspective of slaves’ brutal view, compared to Hammond’s letter justifying slavery and the rights of the slaveholders.

will be analyzed to determine correlations and points of dissent within the historiography of the

Dictatorship throughout the ages has mainly led to oppression and conflict between people and government. Some of the notoriously bad dictators took office around the 1920’s and 1930’s. There were three main dictators in that time period and they all ran different countries in very different ways. Josef Stalin was known as the dictator of the Soviet Union, he was all about communism and did not care if there was opposition to his ideas. On the other hand, Benito Mussolini was in charge of Italy and all about fascism. Possibly the worst known dictator of all times was Hitler, in charge of, Germany, he was all about Nazism. Each had a different outlook on ruling, but they all did things similarly to lead to nations hatred against them. Basically, their ultimate goal was to do what was best for their countries, however, there want for power tended to get in the way. They all wanted to accomplish many things, they used many different ideas and ways to run their nations. They were all blamed for their nations demise in one way or another. This essay will discuss the similarities and differences between Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini.

The viewpoints if Sigmund Freud and Carl Rogers have similarities and differences. Both have made significant contribution to the psychology field. The theories from Freud and Rogers are still used in modern psychology. Freud is best known for creating psychoanalysis and Rogers is renowned for developing the person-centered therapy. The subject of this paper pertains to Freud’s and Rogers’ views of their respective theories, how different their theories would be if they were alive today, and how social and cultural factors influenced the development of their respective theories of personality.

The definition of history, is a question which has sparked international debate for centuries between the writers, readers, and the makers of history. It is a vital topic which should be relevant in our lives because it?s important to acknowledge past events that have occurred in our world that deeply influences the present. This essay will discuss what history is, and why we study it.

This paper will critically evaluate the methodology used in Robert Putnam’s Making Democracy Work. By relying on what the methodological arguments that were taught this semester, this paper will discuss and evaluate in detail the various methodological strategies employed by the author. For the ‘Theory’ theme, this paper will examine casual mechanisms (and methodological individualism) topic, closely referencing the course reading Social Mechanisms by Peter Hedstrom and Richard Swedbeg. Next, for the ‘Measurement and Data’ theme, this paper will specifically examine the measurement validity and reliability topic, and will closely reference “Measurement validity: A Shared Standard for qualitative and Quantitative Research” by Robert Adcock and David Colllier. Finally, for the ‘Testing Theory with Data Theory’, this paper will be examining the history as an explanation topic, closely referencing “The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative and Counterfactuals in Historical Intuitionalism” by Giovanni Capoccia and Daniel Kelemen, as well as the relevant topic, Quantitative versus Qualitative Methods. The paper will start by summarizing the readings relevant to the topics of the themes, then delve into the pertinent methodology in Putnam’s book.

The study of comparative politics is largely influenced by the conflicting importance placed on ‘institutions’ by theorists and researchers alike. This split is broadly characterised by its relationship to other actors in the political decision making sphere, most notably ‘the state’. This paper aims to initially define institutions, demonstrating its vast characterisations, before assessing their real value in comparative research. It will then compare this value with that of traditional theories of the state, to yield that the state is indeed less important than institutions are for comparative research. However, the greater intention of this analysis is to submit that state-centric comparative research has become less valuable, and