History Extension Post-Exam Discussion

[Justin_L]

What did you guys think of the exam?

Here are my thoughts:

Section 1
This was such a good section, the question was about audience impact on the presentation of history with Source A about the role of historians and Source B about history being multi-faceted and multi-platformed which worked really well with my major project about Twitter. I found Source A a bit confusing so I tried to disagree with it by saying it was contradictory and offered a limited view of history by describing the role of historians as to "refine the past" or something like that. Hopefully it'll make sense for the marker but I feel like this paper lent itself really well to exploring contemporary examples of historical construction and audience rather than a traditional Ancients, Von Ranke, Postmodernists essay. (Although I'm slightly scared that I didn't mention Von Ranke, I irrationally feel like I'm gonna lose marks for that)

Section 2
Man this was so confusing. The question was about historical debate in informing the historical past and the source was so confusing??? It was something about "a squishy ground" (someone plz link the source if they remember it) which had the same vibe as that source about a screw and "nailing jelly to the wall". It really short so I had no idea how to integrate it. Did get some good discussion in about historical debate and JFK, so hopefully that saves me.

How did everyone else go?