What The Title Of Hobsbawm 's Book Can Indicate At A First Glance

The essay clearly and concisely analyzes each document, demonstrating an accurate comprehension of the question, and includes a clear, well-developed thesis statement. Evidence from the documents and knowledge of the events and time period sufficiently support the thesis. The essay is written in a coherent manner with smooth transitions from one idea to the next. A score of 9 is given to an essay that provides an in-depth analysis of the documents.

However, the reader must keep in mind that this book is fact-based opinion. The editors and consulted historians are adding their thoughts to the known facts. Although such speculation can open the door to broader thinking, it can also trip up those who take the opinion as fact. If misinterpreted, this book might muddy the waters of the reader’s mind.

(An analysis of how the authors Hughes, Clifton and McElroy and how they use history in their works.)

The study of history and the teaching of history has come under intense public debate in the United States in the last few decades. The “culture-wars” began with the call to add more works by non-Caucasians and women and has bled into the study of history. Not only in the study of history or literature, this debate has spread into American culture like wildfire.

This story was not only riveting, but also one that kept me on my heels for almost the entire time that I was reading it. Stephen B. Oates, a prize-winning author of thirteen books and more then seventy articles, is currently a professor of history at the University of

Throughout time, there will continue to be a considerable divorce between academic and popular historians. As Margaret Conrad argues, popular historians have established the tension, by recreating “historical films without the involvement of trained historians”. This underscores the troubling gulf that sometimes separates public academics approaches to the past. Academic historians have been “too long focused” on professionalism, and discarded “generating” a “dialogue” (Conrad) with their contextual audiences. The substantial dissolution between academic and popular historians is evident in a range of sources, essentially from Michelle Arrows to Herodotus and Thucydides to Bury.

We as knowledge seekers must carefully consider different aspects of each article of history and not make the mistake of believing everything we read in order to fully understand an article about our history.  We must understand the author that wrote it and interviews that have taken place.  This will enable us to look deeper

A Senior Seminar Research Paper Submitted to the Faculty of the Humanities Division in Candidacy for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in History

As a historian, or anyone studying to be one, one must understand who is responsible for the historical text we study every day. Lucretius did not just survive time because it was passed down, but because one single man never gave up his search. Historians praise Poggio and his correspondents for the finding, restoring, and distribution of these important texts. To understand past historians, we are to understand the correspondence between these past historians. Examining these four letters and the text by Stephen Greenblatt, “The Swerve,” will help me understand what History is. What one piece of historic information conveyed clearly by these sources most deeply qualifies, limits, undermines or eve negates what you believe to be Greenblatt’s fundamental argument

Using Nietzsche's great essay on the “Uses and disadvantages of history for life” as the starting point I have examined the utility of the study of history for judgment and practicality. This term paper argues, following Nietzsche; that the wrong kind of historical study can be very bad for "life " causing misery and depression, while the right kind-the kind employed by a pragmatic judge-may deviate from literal accuracy in the direction of a verbal and inspirational narrative of historical events that can be constructively employed in a forward-looking approach for contentment and cheerfulness.

Historians can be every day people recording day-to-day events, politicians making decisions that will affect masses, or biologists recording statistics for animal populations. With these various backgrounds comes overlapping of perspectives between them. The collective perspectives in the times of events, strolling hand in hand with the way these events were recorded, shape the way modern historians view it. Henry Thomas Buckle stated in regards to collective history that, “The singular spectacle of one historian being ignorant of political economy: another physical science, some by one man, and some by another, have been isolated rather than united.” This statement was made in the nineteenth century, and since then communications have developed and blended all of the various backgrounds quite conveniently. The researcher now has unlimited access to primary and secondary sources. Thus, making research for in the day historians much easier and less painstaking when putting together various

Eric Hobsbawm has written a book which has been rightly acclaimed as setting the standard for accounts of the Twentieth Century. We can expect such books to proliferate as we approach the end of the millennium. Few will be able to match the powerful analysis and broad sweep of this book. Others may display more mastery of the specialist historical literature (into which, Hobsbawm acknowledges, he has only dipped) but they will be hard put to address so confidently all the great issues that have occupied intellectual talents over the century, taking in the arts and sciences as readily as economics and politics. Hobsbawm is best approached as much as a political theorist a historian.

These extremely incidental flashes of Hobsbawm the member loan an uncommon validity to his record of changes that occurred somewhere around 1914 and the Nineties. One, obviously, is that by around 1950 our own had turned into the most lethal century ever; this prompts the conclusion that as the century

It is generally accepted by historians that there was a ‘crisis' that blanketed all of Europe during the 17th century. A myriad of revolts, uprisings and economic contractions occurred almost simultaneously and had a profound impact on the socio-economics of the entire continent. The topic for discussion in this paper is the effects that this ‘crisis' had on Europe and its developments. In particular, the focus will be on Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, and his theory that the 17th century crisis was the catalyst for the transition from feudal society to capitalism in England and ultimately the genesis of the industrial revolution. Hobsbawm argues that it was the crisis of the

It is no wonder that how advanced the world may be, there are still a number of human beings, who struggle a lot for their survival; These are the human beings, who are pushed to the margins for the reasons unknown to them, these are the human beings, who are denied a secured place in the world for the mistakes which are not committed by them. These are marginalized people and just like them, their history too is marginalized. Being neglected by the mainstream history, this marginalized history, sometimes has to transform itself and settle in fiction in order to come into light.