History Extension Question Thread!

[Maraos]

Hello again 
I did some research on reductionism and found some past essays which were on similar issues to get some ideas and I made this intro. I'm not too sure if this is what you exactly had in mind but i tried to follow your advice 
I'm going to hand this into my teacher tomorrow so that i can get some feedback before holidays.

Critically analyse the purpose and implications of reductionist history, and its ability to formulate a holistic truth.
An analysis of the Spartacus legend and its impact upon the interpretations of Spartacus and historiography

The perception and portrayal of the historical figure of Spartacus has changed significantly over time.  Historian’s attitudes towards the true character of Spartacus are often conflicting, over time the interpertations of Spartacus have evolved from the Ancient perspectives who portrayed Spartacus as a criminal and bandit. This image remained mostly unchallenged in the middle Ages and Renaissance. However from the 1700s and onwards, the depiction of Spartacus has been greatly impacted. To many moderns Spartacus has been an outright inspiration, as pointed out by Eckstein; “There is a compelling and tragic appeal about an armed rebellion of the utterly downtrodden, which aimed at human freedom, and achieved much against its ferocious slave owning society but ultimately failed.” These polar-opposite perspectives begs the question of whether or not there is a definitive history. As argued by Keith Jenkins; “History is basically a contested discourse, an embattled terrain wherein people(s), classes and groups autobiographically construct interpretation of the past literally to please themselves. There is no definitive history outside these pressures.” Jenkins’ has challenged the paradigms of traditional historical practice and has delegitmised the centralized authority of academia. This reductionist approach to historical scholarship is clearly evident in the Spartacus legend, as pointed out by Beard on the one hand the “Roman writers, for whom slave uprising were probably the most alarming sign of a world turned upside down, wildly exaggerate the number of supporters Spartacus attracted.” Whilst on the other hand; “modern accounts have often wanted to make Spartacus an ideological hero.” On-top of these differing perspectives, more recent ‘popular’ forms of historical representation have added an extra layer to the influx of reductionist perspectives. Therefore, this essay will aim to uncover both the differing interpretations of the Spartacus legend over time, and to further understand the reasons as to why historians have adopted these views.  In-doing so, I hope to uncover the implications of reductionist history and its ability or inability thereof to formulate a holistic truth.


Wasn't sure if this counted as a 'history extension marking' thread post since it's just an intro. Sorry if i posted it in the wrong spot 

Any advice would be great
Thanks! 

[sudodds]

Hey,

Having the exact same problem as Maraos. My question was orignally To what extent was the US justified in dropping the atomic bombs. But I felt like that was too broad and nowhere near an E4 question even though my proposal received 20/20. I'm looking at the issue of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and how different interpretations allow for different records of history to be constructed.

However, I am sturggling to come up with a question that would effectively back up my arguments..

Any help would be greatly appreiciated

Hey! So as I said in my feedback, the best questions in my view are ones that don't even mention and historical event/figure, but instead focus on a historiographical concept of issue and use the event/figure as a case study to demonstrate the validity (or maybe inaccuracy!) of the historiographical concept or issue. For example, this was my question last year:

"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute."

~ Mao Tse-Tung (On Contradiction, 1937)[/i]

To what extent is the discipline of History experiencing this dialectical dilemma?

Essentially what I was saying was that though the discipline of history is arguably thriving, with the likes of postmodernism/linguistic turn expanding our understanding of the nature of history and historiography, and social history/bottom-up approach allowing for new areas of exploration and a renewed significance of the past, they are simultaneously contributing to the watering down and "destruction" of history, as they have perverted the central aim of history - to record the truth, thus transforming the discipline into its "opposite" - a discipline focused on striving for objectivity (even if it was unattainable) to one that thrives on its own subjectivity. That was my concept. Throughout my essay however I incorporated and discussed extensively as my case study the historian Bill O'Reilly. However, rather than basing my essay around him and his works, I instead based my arguments around the dialectical issue, using my own (and others) criticisms of O'Reilly to back up my arguments, by suggesting that though it is borderline blasphemous to suggest that he is a historian comparable to the likes of Hobsbawm, Porter or Carr due to his poor methodologies and questionable motives, he is STILL a historian because the qualities of which are now impossible to discern due to this dialectical perversion.

Long winded explanation, but I hope you get the idea. Use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a case study to support your interpretation of a wide historiographical concept.

Now. Lets work out what specifically your question should be shall we! I actually don't think you need to stray to far away from your original idea, just broaden it (historiographically, not concept wise - you want to keep that specific). I think you can keep your idea of how interpretations of history can provide a justification for past events - focusing on the idea of purpose, and its impact on historical truth. So maybe like (you'd want to clean this up a bit, but just spitballing here): "To what extent is the purpose of national history to justify past national actions?". You'd look at this broadly first, but then you'd use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as your case study to demonstrate the validity (or inaccuracy) of this statement, looking at the opposing national histories of the US and Japan, and how each interpretation of the event is used to justify their actions (or berate the others). Does this make sense? Then you could look at such historiographical concepts such as Nationalism (highly recommend looking at Hobsbawm's book 'Nations and Nationalism since 1780'), maybe Hayden White's concept of Tropes, Social history, etc. etc.

Hope this helps! You don't have to follow what I said above, just trying to give you some ideas of how to approach it! At the end of the day I am neither an expert on the topic (or on history extension mind!), so it is up to you to make the final (and make sure informed!) decision I'd recommend having a chat with your teacher as well, see what they think!

Susie

[damecj]

Hey! So as I said in my feedback, the best questions in my view are ones that don't even mention and historical event/figure, but instead focus on a historiographical concept of issue and use the event/figure as a case study to demonstrate the validity (or maybe inaccuracy!) of the historiographical concept or issue. For example, this was my question last year:

"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute."

~ Mao Tse-Tung (On Contradiction, 1937)[/i]

To what extent is the discipline of History experiencing this dialectical dilemma?

Essentially what I was saying was that though the discipline of history is arguably thriving, with the likes of postmodernism/linguistic turn expanding our understanding of the nature of history and historiography, and social history/bottom-up approach allowing for new areas of exploration and a renewed significance of the past, they are simultaneously contributing to the watering down and "destruction" of history, as they have perverted the central aim of history - to record the truth, thus transforming the discipline into its "opposite" - a discipline focused on striving for objectivity (even if it was unattainable) to one that thrives on its own subjectivity. That was my concept. Throughout my essay however I incorporated and discussed extensively as my case study the historian Bill O'Reilly. However, rather than basing my essay around him and his works, I instead based my arguments around the dialectical issue, using my own (and others) criticisms of O'Reilly to back up my arguments, by suggesting that though it is borderline blasphemous to suggest that he is a historian comparable to the likes of Hobsbawm, Porter or Carr due to his poor methodologies and questionable motives, he is STILL a historian because the qualities of which are now impossible to discern due to this dialectical perversion.

Long winded explanation, but I hope you get the idea. Use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a case study to support your interpretation of a wide historiographical concept.

Now. Lets work out what specifically your question should be shall we! I actually don't think you need to stray to far away from your original idea, just broaden it (historiographically, not concept wise - you want to keep that specific). I think you can keep your idea of how interpretations of history can provide a justification for past events - focusing on the idea of purpose, and its impact on historical truth. So maybe like (you'd want to clean this up a bit, but just spitballing here): "To what extent is the purpose of national history to justify past national actions?". You'd look at this broadly first, but then you'd use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as your case study to demonstrate the validity (or inaccuracy) of this statement, looking at the opposing national histories of the US and Japan, and how each interpretation of the event is used to justify their actions (or berate the others). Does this make sense? Then you could look at such historiographical concepts such as Nationalism (highly recommend looking at Hobsbawm's book 'Nations and Nationalism since 1780'), maybe Hayden White's concept of Tropes, Social history, etc. etc.

Hope this helps! You don't have to follow what I said above, just trying to give you some ideas of how to approach it! At the end of the day I am neither an expert on the topic (or on history extension mind!), so it is up to you to make the final (and make sure informed!) decision I'd recommend having a chat with your teacher as well, see what they think!

Susie

Thank you very much Susie, this was extremley helpful as usual!!

[sudodds]

Hello again 
I did some research on reductionism and found some past essays which were on similar issues to get some ideas and I made this intro. I'm not too sure if this is what you exactly had in mind but i tried to follow your advice 
I'm going to hand this into my teacher tomorrow so that i can get some feedback before holidays.

Critically analyse the purpose and implications of reductionist history, and its ability to formulate a holistic truth.
An analysis of the Spartacus legend and its impact upon the interpretations of Spartacus and historiography

The perception and portrayal of the historical figure of Spartacus has changed significantly over time.  Historian’s attitudes towards the true character of Spartacus are often conflicting, over time the interpertations of Spartacus have evolved from the Ancient perspectives who portrayed Spartacus as a criminal and bandit. This image remained mostly unchallenged in the middle Ages and Renaissance. However from the 1700s and onwards, the depiction of Spartacus has been greatly impacted. To many moderns Spartacus has been an outright inspiration, as pointed out by Eckstein; “There is a compelling and tragic appeal about an armed rebellion of the utterly downtrodden, which aimed at human freedom, and achieved much against its ferocious slave owning society but ultimately failed.” These polar-opposite perspectives begs the question of whether or not there is a definitive history. As argued by Keith Jenkins; “History is basically a contested discourse, an embattled terrain wherein people(s), classes and groups autobiographically construct interpretation of the past literally to please themselves. There is no definitive history outside these pressures.” Jenkins’ has challenged the paradigms of traditional historical practice and has delegitmised the centralized authority of academia. This reductionist approach to historical scholarship is clearly evident in the Spartacus legend, as pointed out by Beard on the one hand the “Roman writers, for whom slave uprising were probably the most alarming sign of a world turned upside down, wildly exaggerate the number of supporters Spartacus attracted.” Whilst on the other hand; “modern accounts have often wanted to make Spartacus an ideological hero.” On-top of these differing perspectives, more recent ‘popular’ forms of historical representation have added an extra layer to the influx of reductionist perspectives. Therefore, this essay will aim to uncover both the differing interpretations of the Spartacus legend over time, and to further understand the reasons as to why historians have adopted these views.  In-doing so, I hope to uncover the implications of reductionist history and its ability or inability thereof to formulate a holistic truth.


Wasn't sure if this counted as a 'history extension marking' thread post since it's just an intro. Sorry if i posted it in the wrong spot 

Any advice would be great
Thanks! 

No worries Maraos! As it's only an intro happy to just look at it here (+ won't count towards your post balance )

My comments can be found in the spoiler!

Spoiler

Critically analyse the purpose and implications of reductionist history, and its ability to formulate a holistic truth.
An analysis of the Spartacus legend and its impact upon the interpretations of Spartacus and historiography

The perception and portrayal of the historical figure of Spartacus has changed significantly over time. Your first sentence should always answer the question - ie. you need to be making a judgement on reductionism! I'd probably not even mention Spartacus in your first sentence.
 Treat this a bit like a discovery essay. You want to introduce discovery as a concept first in your intro, and then introduce your prescribed and related texts. Spartacus is your text, that you have chosen to demonstrate your judgment upon the concept of reductionism   Historian’s attitudes towards the true character of Spartacus are often conflicting, over time the interpertations of Spartacus have evolved from the Ancient perspectives who portrayed Spartacus as a criminal and bandit. This image remained mostly unchallenged in the middle Ages and Renaissance. However from the 1700s and onwards, the depiction of Spartacus has been greatly impacted. This is too history - you're providing me with an outline of the interpretations of Spartacus. I want to see a discussion upon the role of reductionism in history! To many moderns Spartacus has been an outright inspiration, as pointed out by Eckstein; “There is a compelling and tragic appeal about an armed rebellion of the utterly downtrodden, which aimed at human freedom, and achieved much against its ferocious slave owning society but ultimately failed.” These polar-opposite perspectives begs the question of whether or not there is a definitive history. This should have been introduced earlier - still waiting for a discussion upon reductionism! As argued by Keith Jenkins; “History is basically a contested discourse, an embattled terrain wherein people(s), classes and groups autobiographically construct interpretation of the past literally to please themselves. There is no definitive history outside these pressures.” Nice quote, but is it the best for reductionism? Jenkins’ has challenged the paradigms of traditional historical practice and has delegitmised the centralized authority of academia. This reductionist approach but you haven't explained what this is yet! to historical scholarship is clearly evident in the Spartacus legend, as pointed out by Beard on the one hand the “Roman writers, for whom slave uprising were probably the most alarming sign of a world turned upside down, wildly exaggerate the number of supporters Spartacus attracted.” Whilst on the other hand; “modern accounts have often wanted to make Spartacus an ideological hero.” Much better On-top of these differing perspectives, more recent ‘popular’ forms of historical representation have added an extra layer to the influx of reductionist perspectives. Therefore, this essay will aim to uncover both the differing interpretations of the Spartacus legend over time, and to further understand the reasons as to why historians have adopted these views.  In-doing so, I hope to uncover the implications of reductionist history and its ability or inability thereof to formulate a holistic truth.

You need to focus way more on reductionism here. That is the focus of your question, but if I didn't know your question I wouldn't know that. I also wouldn't know what reductionism is from your introduction, which is a bad sign. Rather than providing an outline of interpretations, discuss and introduce the concept of reductionism as its own thing, disconnected from Spartacus. Mention why reductionism is used and why it is inevitable, provide a judgement as to whether it provides a false narrative, whether it is purposeful or incidental, etc. etc. Remember that all history is reductionist to a certain extent - consider EH Carr's fishing analogy in 'What is History?'. A historian doesn't have the time (and many the inclination) to read and observe ALL sources pertinent to an issue, thus there will always be gaps in knowledge. As David Hackett Fisher suggests, a historian can only know "something about something" - they can never know or write about the whole truth, thus they are being reductionist! Furthermore, source pools are by nature reductionist. Have at this extract from John Vincent's work 'The Intelligent Person's Guide to History' (I actually recommend reading this fully - a great source for Section I of the exam!!)

"History is deeply male. History is essentially non-young. History is about the rich and famous, not the poor. History favours the articulate, not the silent. History is about winners (including those losers who were eventual winners), not about losers. History is about assessing distortions, not copying out truths. History has to live with, is indeed the child of censorship: the censorship by one culture of its predecessor, the censorship by a great modern bureaucracy of its own overproduction of records, the censorship of astute reticence by those aware that the eye of posterity will watch them. History has much to say about the way the powerful handle power, for power engenders records.

History is about evidence, and evidence flagrantly distorts. There is a bias in the creation of evidence, and a bias in the survival of evidence. There may be a bias in access to what survives, too. There is a bias towards the important (and self-important), a political bias to winners against losers, a bias towards the stable and against the unstable, and perhaps a deliberate censorship of the past by the past on top of that. Before we even get to modern historians, distortion is built into the very nature of history...

...This suggests a simple rule. No evidence, no history; imperfect evidence, imperfect history.Against such stark considerations, purity of motive on the part of historians today faces an uphill task. The distortions in evidence that are already there, cannot be brushed away with a broom called objectivity."

So yeah, TL;DR I think you need to consider the concept of reductionism more. Your links however between Reductionism and Spartacus were great!

Hope this helps,

Susie

[sudodds]

Thank you very much Susie, this was extremley helpful as usual!!

No worries damecj! Glad you found it helpful

[Maraos]

No worries Maraos! As it's only an intro happy to just look at it here (+ won't count towards your post balance )

My comments can be found in the spoiler!

Spoiler

Critically analyse the purpose and implications of reductionist history, and its ability to formulate a holistic truth.
An analysis of the Spartacus legend and its impact upon the interpretations of Spartacus and historiography

The perception and portrayal of the historical figure of Spartacus has changed significantly over time. Your first sentence should always answer the question - ie. you need to be making a judgement on reductionism! I'd probably not even mention Spartacus in your first sentence.
 Treat this a bit like a discovery essay. You want to introduce discovery as a concept first in your intro, and then introduce your prescribed and related texts. Spartacus is your text, that you have chosen to demonstrate your judgment upon the concept of reductionism   Historian’s attitudes towards the true character of Spartacus are often conflicting, over time the interpertations of Spartacus have evolved from the Ancient perspectives who portrayed Spartacus as a criminal and bandit. This image remained mostly unchallenged in the middle Ages and Renaissance. However from the 1700s and onwards, the depiction of Spartacus has been greatly impacted. This is too history - you're providing me with an outline of the interpretations of Spartacus. I want to see a discussion upon the role of reductionism in history! To many moderns Spartacus has been an outright inspiration, as pointed out by Eckstein; “There is a compelling and tragic appeal about an armed rebellion of the utterly downtrodden, which aimed at human freedom, and achieved much against its ferocious slave owning society but ultimately failed.” These polar-opposite perspectives begs the question of whether or not there is a definitive history. This should have been introduced earlier - still waiting for a discussion upon reductionism! As argued by Keith Jenkins; “History is basically a contested discourse, an embattled terrain wherein people(s), classes and groups autobiographically construct interpretation of the past literally to please themselves. There is no definitive history outside these pressures.” Nice quote, but is it the best for reductionism? Jenkins’ has challenged the paradigms of traditional historical practice and has delegitmised the centralized authority of academia. This reductionist approach but you haven't explained what this is yet! to historical scholarship is clearly evident in the Spartacus legend, as pointed out by Beard on the one hand the “Roman writers, for whom slave uprising were probably the most alarming sign of a world turned upside down, wildly exaggerate the number of supporters Spartacus attracted.” Whilst on the other hand; “modern accounts have often wanted to make Spartacus an ideological hero.” Much better On-top of these differing perspectives, more recent ‘popular’ forms of historical representation have added an extra layer to the influx of reductionist perspectives. Therefore, this essay will aim to uncover both the differing interpretations of the Spartacus legend over time, and to further understand the reasons as to why historians have adopted these views.  In-doing so, I hope to uncover the implications of reductionist history and its ability or inability thereof to formulate a holistic truth.

You need to focus way more on reductionism here. That is the focus of your question, but if I didn't know your question I wouldn't know that. I also wouldn't know what reductionism is from your introduction, which is a bad sign. Rather than providing an outline of interpretations, discuss and introduce the concept of reductionism as its own thing, disconnected from Spartacus. Mention why reductionism is used and why it is inevitable, provide a judgement as to whether it provides a false narrative, whether it is purposeful or incidental, etc. etc. Remember that all history is reductionist to a certain extent - consider EH Carr's fishing analogy in 'What is History?'. A historian doesn't have the time (and many the inclination) to read and observe ALL sources pertinent to an issue, thus there will always be gaps in knowledge. As David Hackett Fisher suggests, a historian can only know "something about something" - they can never know or write about the whole truth, thus they are being reductionist! Furthermore, source pools are by nature reductionist. Have at this extract from John Vincent's work 'The Intelligent Person's Guide to History' (I actually recommend reading this fully - a great source for Section I of the exam!!)

"History is deeply male. History is essentially non-young. History is about the rich and famous, not the poor. History favours the articulate, not the silent. History is about winners (including those losers who were eventual winners), not about losers. History is about assessing distortions, not copying out truths. History has to live with, is indeed the child of censorship: the censorship by one culture of its predecessor, the censorship by a great modern bureaucracy of its own overproduction of records, the censorship of astute reticence by those aware that the eye of posterity will watch them. History has much to say about the way the powerful handle power, for power engenders records.

History is about evidence, and evidence flagrantly distorts. There is a bias in the creation of evidence, and a bias in the survival of evidence. There may be a bias in access to what survives, too. There is a bias towards the important (and self-important), a political bias to winners against losers, a bias towards the stable and against the unstable, and perhaps a deliberate censorship of the past by the past on top of that. Before we even get to modern historians, distortion is built into the very nature of history...

...This suggests a simple rule. No evidence, no history; imperfect evidence, imperfect history.Against such stark considerations, purity of motive on the part of historians today faces an uphill task. The distortions in evidence that are already there, cannot be brushed away with a broom called objectivity."

So yeah, TL;DR I think you need to consider the concept of reductionism more. Your links however between Reductionism and Spartacus were great!

Hope this helps,

Susie

Thanks so much for the help! 
I gotta drum out my ancient history mind when writing extension history.

[sudodds]

Thanks so much for the help! 
I gotta drum out my ancient history mind when writing extension history.

No worries! Hahaha it is hard, but necessary! I was definitely quite caught up on the Modern 'Historical Investigation' mind at the beginning - a takes a while (and practice!) to sink in! So many students get caught in the trap of writing a history essay and not a historiography essay - but now you know so you can make sure to avoid it!

[samsclaire]

if this has been answered before, i'm sorry - i haven't seen it. but how much do you need to know about this historians for section two. all i've got is historians and their view points on things and it's giving me anxiety because i don't know if i'm doing it right (i'm doing JFK)

[sudodds]

if this has been answered before, i'm sorry - i haven't seen it. but how much do you need to know about this historians for section two. all i've got is historians and their view points on things and it's giving me anxiety because i don't know if i'm doing it right (i'm doing JFK)

Hey! This hasn't been answered before (and even then it wouldn't be a big deal dw ! It sounds like you're in a pretty good spot don't worry! That was about as much as I knew going into trials - history extension is a very difficult subject to study for bar doing past papers, so please don't be anxious! We're all in the same boat Knowing the historians and their views is definitely important, however I think what is more important is understanding why these views have come to be! Section II is very similar to Section I, in that the overriding focus is still the construction of history, whereby you should be integrating historiographical concepts and issues (eg. postmodernism, linguistics, reductionism, empiricism etc.), however linking them specifically to how they are demonstrated throughout your case study.

Unfortunately I didn't study JFK, however I'll give you a Western Imperialism example. One reason a historical producer may wish to write history is for the purpose of justifying the present. This is evident through the way in which Western Imperialism and British colonial expansion is interpreted by Niall Ferguson. The "positive" way in which Ferguson paints the impact of the expansion of the British Empire, controversially suggesting that despite mass slaughter it was a "good thing" as it brought "culture" and "civilisation" to other areas of the globe is inextricably linked to his aim to legitimise US imperialism today!

You see how I linked a greater historiographical issue - history for politics - to my case study? Rather than just listing interpretations, this is how you can score those top marks Furthermore do not be afraid to tear these interpretations to shred. Rip apart a historians methodology/ideology/purpose/etc! Also it is imperative that you stick with the question (that may seem obvious but soooo many students fail to do this!), and make sure that you focus in particular upon the relevant debates, rather than just drifting off and writing just everything you know about the topic!

Hope this helps,

Susie

[samsclaire]

Hey! This hasn't been answered before (and even then it wouldn't be a big deal dw ! It sounds like you're in a pretty good spot don't worry! That was about as much as I knew going into trials - history extension is a very difficult subject to study for bar doing past papers, so please don't be anxious! We're all in the same boat Knowing the historians and their views is definitely important, however I think what is more important is understanding why these views have come to be! Section II is very similar to Section I, in that the overriding focus is still the construction of history, whereby you should be integrating historiographical concepts and issues (eg. postmodernism, linguistics, reductionism, empiricism etc.), however linking them specifically to how they are demonstrated throughout your case study.

Unfortunately I didn't study JFK, however I'll give you a Western Imperialism example. One reason a historical producer may wish to write history is for the purpose of justifying the present. This is evident through the way in which Western Imperialism and British colonial expansion is interpreted by Niall Ferguson. The "positive" way in which Ferguson paints the impact of the expansion of the British Empire, controversially suggesting that despite mass slaughter it was a "good thing" as it brought "culture" and "civilisation" to other areas of the globe is inextricably linked to his aim to legitimise US imperialism today!

You see how I linked a greater historiographical issue - history for politics - to my case study? Rather than just listing interpretations, this is how you can score those top marks Furthermore do not be afraid to tear these interpretations to shred. Rip apart a historians methodology/ideology/purpose/etc! Also it is imperative that you stick with the question (that may seem obvious but soooo many students fail to do this!), and make sure that you focus in particular upon the relevant debates, rather than just drifting off and writing just everything you know about the topic!

Hope this helps,

Susie

so, if I do it like below, should I be okay?:

historian --> historian’s view --> why historian is That way --> historiographical views --> question

(I just don’t have time to research all the historians and their methodologies  )

basically, I’m focusing on how there are two major schools of thought for Kennedy's early life. do you think that will be mutable enough for a question and stimuli? It’s got history, historiographical issues, and I can extend it back to motivations and causes for history's creation and use.

[sudodds]

so, if I do it like below, should I be okay?:

historian --> historian’s view --> why historian is That way --> historiographical views --> question

(I just don’t have time to research all the historians and their methodologies  )

basically, I’m focusing on how there are two major schools of thought for Kennedy's early life. do you think that will be mutable enough for a question and stimuli? It’s got history, historiographical issues, and I can extend it back to motivations and causes for history's creation and use.

I'd actually structure it the opposite way!

Question --> broader historiographical issue --> how this impacts your case study --> why are their different views --> what are the views --> historians.

The historians are there to back up your argument, not to form it if that makes sense. Your judgement still needs to be shining through! I know you say you don't have enough time to research all the historians and there methodologies, but I'd really put in the effort to at least get a few of them. It shouldn't take too long, particularly for JFK as it is the most popular case study! Pick say 4-5 historians, all that have pretty different views and just do a bit of research, it really will do wonders to your essay (plus dissecting methodology is actually pretty easy but rarely ever done)!

In terms of your second question, as I didn't study JFK unfortunately I'm not 100% sure, however it looks about right! As long as you can look at why there are differing interpretations, rather than just listing interpretations then that is sweet!

[av-angie-er]

Quick question, is the annotated bibliography section of the major work meant to only include the three sources with their annotations, or does it encompass these three sources with their annotations as well as every other source used in the research? Thanks!

[sudodds]

Quick question, is the annotated bibliography section of the major work meant to only include the three sources with their annotations, or does it encompass these three sources with their annotations as well as every other source used in the research? Thanks!

You need all of the sources that you used to be in your bibliography (this includes all sources that you used, even the ones that are already footnoted/endnoted), however you only need to annotate three - so your second scenario is correct

[av-angie-er]

You need all of the sources that you used to be in your bibliography (this includes all sources that you used, even the ones that are already footnoted/endnoted), however you only need to annotate three - so your second scenario is correct

Gotcha, thank you so much as always, Susie!

[bellerina]

How many paragraphs should we aim for in the 'What is History' section?