History Extension Question Thread!

[katie,rinos]

The major debates/issues that I suggest having a look at are:
- Can history be objective? (so empiricists v. relativists v. postmodernists)
- Should history be objective? (empricists v. postmodernists)
- Popular history v. Academic History? or Public v. Private history?
- Social History (pros and cons)
- Role of imagination
- Role of popular culture
- Nature of evidence - only official documents?

Those kinda things I'm sure you can think of a tonne more as well! It is DEFINITELY a great idea to talk about your major work - it doesn't matter if they don't know about your historians, YOU know about them, which means you'll be able to provide a super sophisticated and thorough analysis of them + you'll be going beyond the conventional, seen-them-all-before historians like Herodotus and Von Ranke. Some schools may study John Vincent, but not every school! My school didn't, I just read some of his works - he's a really great source, deals with the nature of evidence and social history really well!

Thanks heaps!! I'll definitely make some tables for those debates. I really loved my major so hopefully I'll be able to incorporate the historians somehow. For John Vincent there is an excerpt of An Intelligent Person’s Guide to History in the stage 6 source book of readings, is there any other of his works that you suggest me to read.

[sudodds]

Thanks heaps!! I'll definitely make some tables for those debates. I really loved my major so hopefully I'll be able to incorporate the historians somehow. For John Vincent there is an excerpt of An Intelligent Person’s Guide to History in the stage 6 source book of readings, is there any other of his works that you suggest me to read.

Awesome! I pretty much just stuck with that - that extract is a beast, without it I would not have got the mark that I did for my final exam, as I based my entire argument around his discussion upon the nature of evidence, and how it "flagrantly distorts" His book is great though - if you have time I definitely recommend flicking through the full thing! But if not, the extract will still serve you nicely!

Susie

[bellerina]

Oh my god, that is a brilliant idea! I already have notes on historians but I will definitely try to put them in your suggested tabled format Susie! Thank you guys! This is really GREAT help! xx

[katie,rinos]

Awesome! I pretty much just stuck with that - that extract is a beast, without it I would not have got the mark that I did for my final exam, as I based my entire argument around his discussion upon the nature of evidence, and how it "flagrantly distorts" His book is great though - if you have time I definitely recommend flicking through the full thing! But if not, the extract will still serve you nicely!

Susie

Just realised they have it at my local library and i'm so happy (they literally have 2 books on historiography and this is one). I'm such a history nerd. Will definitely flick through the whole thing!
Thanks heaps Susie!!

[olr1999]

My preferred method was to focus entirely on historiographical issues and ideas! So definitely some of the examples that you included (eg. impact of history from below), but also stuff like "is objectivity attainable?", "role of pop culture", "role of ideology" etc. etc.

The examples you used in this are so relevant to the essay I am trying to write at the moment, you just made it so much easier for me! Thank you!

[sudodds]

The examples you used in this are so relevant to the essay I am trying to write at the moment, you just made it so much easier for me! Thank you!

No worries! So glad you found it useful

[Jess.martinuzzo]

Hi Susie!
I was just wondering with Question 2 and the Case Study, is there a specific way to answer the question, is it the same as Q1 just with the debate incorporated or is it just discussing the historians and their points of view??
Because so far, I've been taught for question 2 to just write about the historians and their point of view and I am a bit unsure how I would incorporate 'what is history' ideas with it.

[bigsweetpotato2000]

Hi Susie!
I was just wondering with Question 2 and the Case Study, is there a specific way to answer the question, is it the same as Q1 just with the debate incorporated or is it just discussing the historians and their points of view??
Because so far, I've been taught for question 2 to just write about the historians and their point of view and I am a bit unsure how I would incorporate 'what is history' ideas with it.

Oooohhh
Sorry but I'm going to add onto your question hehe, for question 2 my school studied two debatable arguments i guess you can say, if I just write on one thesis is that alright?

Thanks

Bigsweetpotato Farm

and thanks Jess for letting me piggyback onto your post

[sudodds]

Hi Susie!
I was just wondering with Question 2 and the Case Study, is there a specific way to answer the question, is it the same as Q1 just with the debate incorporated or is it just discussing the historians and their points of view??
Because so far, I've been taught for question 2 to just write about the historians and their point of view and I am a bit unsure how I would incorporate 'what is history' ideas with it.

Hey! I wrote my Section II essays very similarly to a 'What is History' essay, just paying a particular focus to the historiographical issues that impacted upon Western Imperialism (my case study). So I'd usually centre each paragraph around a particular histioriographical issue, such as conflict between academic and popular history, to what extent history is written for the present, role of ideology, etc. etc, linking the historians of Western Imperialism throughout, and analysing their perspectives specifically, rather than just incorporating any historian or historiographer like in Section I So I'd discuss the historians views, in relation to the impact of said historiographical issue

Oooohhh
Sorry but I'm going to add onto your question hehe, for question 2 my school studied two debatable arguments i guess you can say, if I just write on one thesis is that alright?

Thanks

Bigsweetpotato Farm

and thanks Jess for letting me piggyback onto your post

It'll specify in the question how many debates they want you to discuss - as far as I'm aware it's usually two, so you'll want to have a solid understanding of both!!

Hope this helps!

Susie

[bigsweetpotato2000]

It'll specify in the question how many debates they want you to discuss - as far as I'm aware it's usually two, so you'll want to have a solid understanding of both!!

Hope this helps!

Susie

Alright thanks!

For the major work, how do you actually classify each paragraph? Cause I have my paragraphs categorised for each different historian analysed but they seem...decades long

Any suggestions?



Bigsweetpotato Farm

Mod Edit: Merged posts 

[sudodds]

Alright thanks!

For the major work, how do you actually classify each paragraph? Cause I have my paragraphs categorised for each different historian analysed but they seem...decades long

Any suggestions?



Bigsweetpotato Farm

Mod Edit: Merged posts 

What do you mean by "classify"? Do you mean what do you discuss in each paragraph? Me personally, I focused on greater historiographical issues that impacted my topic, so a paragraph on postmodernism and how it has both expanded discussion, but also distorted the supposedly central aim of history - truth, and then a paragraph on social history, and how it broadens the discipline, while also distorting it through legitimising imagination and a historical tool of enquiry!

Hope this helps, sorry if I didn't understand your question!

Susie

(also 100 posts on this thread now wooo!!!)

 

[bigsweetpotato2000]

What do you mean by "classify"? Do you mean what do you discuss in each paragraph? Me personally, I focused on greater historiographical issues that impacted my topic, so a paragraph on postmodernism and how it has both expanded discussion, but also distorted the supposedly central aim of history - truth, and then a paragraph on social history, and how it broadens the discipline, while also distorting it through legitimising imagination and a historical tool of enquiry!

Hope this helps, sorry if I didn't understand your question!

Susie

(also 100 posts on this thread now wooo!!!)

 

Yea I don't understand myself either HAHAHAHA

I'm having trouble breaking up my paragraphs because my teacher said it was too long that's all, and I don't know how to break it up? Like should I start a new paragraph when I change my interpretation or how?

[sudodds]

Yea I don't understand myself either HAHAHAHA

I'm having trouble breaking up my paragraphs because my teacher said it was too long that's all, and I don't know how to break it up? Like should I start a new paragraph when I change my interpretation or how?

Ah, so it's not about breaking up your ideas, but more that they don't want to read just one long slab or text? I'd probably break them up when you start a new point, even if its part of the same general idea. The way that I did this last year was that I had a line break for every new idea (so I had two), and the an indent for every new point within said idea So I had to "main paragraphs", but each paragraph was broken up into smaller sections, distinguished through indents Is that kinda what your teacher meant?

[bigsweetpotato2000]

Ah, so it's not about breaking up your ideas, but more that they don't want to read just one long slab or text? I'd probably break them up when you start a new point, even if its part of the same general idea. The way that I did this last year was that I had a line break for every new idea (so I had two), and the an indent for every new point within said idea So I had to "main paragraphs", but each paragraph was broken up into smaller sections, distinguished through indents Is that kinda what your teacher meant?

Yep! I think that's exactly what she meant because the writing seemed too long~so if I was starting to discuss the how the historians interpretation was limited instead of following before which was how the perspective was well backed up and researched would I break it up there? even if I am discussing the same historian' s work?

[sudodds]

Yep! I think that's exactly what she meant because the writing seemed too long~so if I was starting to discuss the how the historians interpretation was limited instead of following before which was how the perspective was well backed up and researched would I break it up there? even if I am discussing the same historian' s work?

That sounds like a logical break point to me!