ATAR Notes: Forum
HSC Stuff => HSC History => HSC Humanities Stuff => HSC Subjects + Help => HSC Extension History => Topic started by: tasiakuz on June 24, 2016, 05:33:37 pm
-
Hey guys! I just wanted to check in on how everyone is coming along with their major works just so I compare where I am at.
Currently I have only written synopsis, introduction and first paragraph, having til the end of the school holidays to finish.
How are you all staying motivated, any tips? Also would love to know what everyone is doing theres on.
-
Hey guys! I just wanted to check in on how everyone is coming along with their major works just so I compare where I am at.
Currently I have only written synopsis, introduction and first paragraph, having til the end of the school holidays to finish.
How are you all staying motivated, any tips? Also would love to know what everyone is doing theres on.
I've finished my major work, and handed it in on June 25th.
If I'm being honest, I was really lazy with mine until the few weeks before it was due. I would only ever work on it when each part was due, however I was somehow way ahead of my class. The only way to really stay motivated is to be passionate about your topic. The more I wrote, the more engaging I found it. The topic for my thesis was ‘Terrorism, Freedom Fighting and Martyrdom’, looking at the power of pejorative language to achieve a political purpose, incorporating a post-structuralist approach. This really allowed me to explore the historiography rather than just the history of my subjects. I looked at the Anglo-Irish conflict, and the impact of propaganda in exploiting the nature of the Irish fight for freedom. What topic did you focus on?
If you dedicate small blocks of time very few days, and make sure to have all your preliminary research completed then you should be able to smash it out before the end of the holidays. Make sure to communicate with your teacher and get feedback wherever possible.
-
I've finished my major work, and handed it in on June 25th.
If I'm being honest, I was really lazy with mine until the few weeks before it was due. I would only ever work on it when each part was due, however I was somehow way ahead of my class. The only way to really stay motivated is to be passionate about your topic. The more I wrote, the more engaging I found it. The topic for my thesis was ‘Terrorism, Freedom Fighting and Martyrdom’, looking at the power of pejorative language to achieve a political purpose, incorporating a post-structuralist approach. This really allowed me to explore the historiography rather than just the history of my subjects. I looked at the Anglo-Irish conflict, and the impact of propaganda in exploiting the nature of the Irish fight for freedom. What topic did you focus on?
If you dedicate small blocks of time very few days, and make sure to have all your preliminary research completed then you should be able to smash it out before the end of the holidays. Make sure to communicate with your teacher and get feedback wherever possible.
Congrats on submission!! ;D
-
Congrats on submission!! ;D
Thank you! Definitely a relief to have it done ;D
-
Hey guys! I just wanted to check in on how everyone is coming along with their major works just so I compare where I am at.
Currently I have only written synopsis, introduction and first paragraph, having til the end of the school holidays to finish.
How are you all staying motivated, any tips? Also would love to know what everyone is doing theres on.
Our Major work is due around the same time as you :) I've pretty much finished everything today, but I was about where you were when you posted this (I think I may have had a second paragraph up as well but I can't remember). Motivation wise, I just tried to do as much as I could in blocks (like 4 or 5 hours). I know that for a lot of people that isn't the best idea, but for me that just seems to work because as soon as I take a break I can't motivate myself to start again. My questions based around dialectics and the "interpenetration of opposites", my argument being that the Discipline of History is experiencing this dialectical shift into its "opposite," from a "truth" based discipline to one now more focused on subjectivity through analysing the role of the linguistic turn and the "bottom up" historians, using Bill O'Reilly as a case study. What was yours about? (btw cmbarnes yours sounds so interesting! Good luck!)
-
My questions based around dialectics and the "interpenetration of opposites", my argument being that the Discipline of History is experiencing this dialectical shift into its "opposite," from a "truth" based discipline to one now more focused on subjectivity through analysing the role of the linguistic turn and the "bottom up" historians, using Bill O'Reilly as a case study. What was yours about? (btw cmbarnes yours sounds so interesting! Good luck!)
Thanks, yours too. I'm sure you'll do great, good luck!
-
Congratulations guys :)
-
Congratulations guys :)
Thanks! Have you handed in yours yet? What was it about :)
-
does anyone have tips for outline the actual Major Work? I've got a paragraph on a major issue, then with historians and smaller points underneath. is that right?
(my focus question: to what extent was repression evident or expressed in Soviet agricultural policy? relate to the policy for the first-five year plan)
-
does anyone have tips for outline the actual Major Work? I've got a paragraph on a major issue, then with historians and smaller points underneath. is that right?
(my focus question: to what extent was repression evident or expressed in Soviet agricultural policy? relate to the policy for the first-five year plan)
Hey samsclaire!
By an outline do you mean a bit like an essay plan? If so I'd say that that is probably a pretty good way of going about it - I'd also make sure that you have some historiographical concepts floating around in there as well. I was more of a write now think later kinda gal, rarely ever had a plan in mind, just wrote and re-wrote and re-wrote until I was happy. I felt like in extension having a strict plan for me didn't really work, as my ideas often changed through writing and further research. Not to say that having a plan is a bad thing! Just that there is not much else I can really suggest haha.
On the topic of historiography, just an observation on your question - I think it's a bit too "history". What do I mean by that? Well the major work isn't meant to be a history essay, it is meant to be a historiography essay. You're not looking at the hows and whys of history, but the hows and whys of the interpretations of history, thus in a historiography essay whether repression was evident or not is irrelevant - what is important is what the historians say about repression and why they say what they say. With that is mind, if I were you I'd probably want to revaluate my question to include more explicit reference to historiography (if you need any help with this let me know!). You can still keep it in the general topic of soviet agricultural policy, most people have a case study - just make sure that the overall focus of your essay is historiography and not history.
Susie
-
For anyone in the future... don't leave it to the night before like me.
-
For anyone in the future... don't leave it to the night before like me.
Oh boy! Yeah definitely not something I'd recommend! Do you still feel like it went okay though? What was your topic? :)
-
I'm doing it right now, It's due tomorrow and im stuck for words and ideas, procrastination is at an all time high, and I'm really struggling. I went well for my proposal scoring 17/20 (I literally handed it in 1 min before it was due) but I wont be so lucky here. My question is -
How did the nature of the foundation of America in 1776 shape the nation’s Ideology and Democracy?
Any help you can provide would be amazing, and I'd be in your debt.
-
I'm doing it right now, It's due tomorrow and im stuck for words and ideas, procrastination is at an all time high, and I'm really struggling. I went well for my proposal scoring 17/20 (I literally handed it in 1 min before it was due) but I wont be so lucky here. My question is -
How did the nature of the foundation of America in 1776 shape the nation’s Ideology and Democracy?
Any help you can provide would be amazing, and I'd be in your debt.
Ah okay! Hmmmmm unfortunately I'm not very knowledgeable content wise on the topic that you have chosen. However, what I always recommend structure wise is to either break it up by historiographical concepts - eg. impact and understanding of postmodernism, objectivism, reductionism, Orientalism etc. etc. - OR by the syllabus. Just above all else make sure that you are writing historiography and NOT history. Don't go into crazy detail about the actual nature of the foundation of America, but more so the various debates and interpretations of the foundation :) What does one historian say, and why does they say it? What methodologies did they use to formulate their conclusion. Some historiographical and philosophical concepts (I assume given my admittedly limited knowledge of the topic - these just typically work well for American history) you could have a look into could be;
- White Mans Burden (can also link to Orientalism)
- Manifest Destiny
- Isolationism and Imperialism
- Social History (History from the Bottom Up)
Hope this helps!
Susie
-
That really helps, I appreciate it :)
-
Hello!
If anyone could help me this would be great!
For my project I'm basing it on the historiography of Richard III... while I've done all my research (context, sources and all) I'm finding it difficult to come up with a sophisticated question I can use.
Any ideas???
Thank you! :)
Heya! Sure thing :) In my opinion, it is always best to use the more "history" element - i.e. a focus event or personality, so in your case Richard the Third - as a case study to demonstrate a wider historiographical concept, rather than the focus of the question! This will prevent any narrative/history writing, and will instead force you to write historiography!! With that in mind, I therefore suggest that you pick a historiographical concept or issue that you feel in pertinent to the historiography of Richard the Third. I don't know that much about him as a figure, but from what little I do know, perhaps these could work?;
- Impact of fiction and narrative to interpretations of historical figures (looking at Shakespeare's play as an example of historical writing!)
- Mythologising or Glamourising of history (don't know if this 100% works, just basing this off of the weird way in which Richard the Third was discovered)
- The concept and impact of National history on a nations sense of identity (So looking at British national identity here - If you chose this I highly recommend reading 'Nations and Nationalism Since 1780' by Hobsbawm. Originally I was going to look at Scottish national history through the 'highland myth' and this was very useful/interesting!)
SO! With those ideas in mind, your question may look like this, (again these are only suggestions - you don't have to do this if you don't want to!): To what extent can narrative storytelling provide an accurate depiction of the past?
Notice how I didn't mention Richard the Third? You still discuss him, but now rather than basing your whole essay around him which = history essay (something you don't want to write), you are instead forced to assert his significance as a historical figure in demonstrating the impact of narrative storytelling upon interpretations of his personality to prove your wider judgement upon the historiographical issue which is sooooo much more sophisticated! Think about it this way - Discovery is the concept in your Paper 1 essay question, but you case study is your prescribed text. The same works in this instance - plus you can bring in related texts also (ie. other case studies that demonstrate similar issues) to broaden the scope of your response! So each of you paragraphs would feature one concern, detriment or impact of narrative storytelling on history - maybe to make history more palatable thus sell more copies, to create a national identity (myth), how it reduces an event to its storytelling components, etc, etc. (If you do this - highly suggest having a look at Hayden White and his concept of 'Tropes'!). Then you'd relate back each idea to how this is shown through the historiography of Richard the Third.
Hope this helps!! If you are confused about anything please let me know :)
Susie
-
Hi Susie,
Thank you so much for getting back to me!
I really like the idea you gave about National history/Identity and also the essay question you gave!
So I found this website, and I just wanted to ask firstly, if this was the sort of thing you were talking about (in regards to Hayden White's tropes); and secondly, also if you could clear up the 'Argument' section of this website please!!
http://www.lehigh.edu/~ineng/syll/syll-metahistory.html
But if I were to structure my essay according to the three ideas, how would I do so, so I can reach the 2500 word count?
Thank you so much for all of this... its greatly appreciated! :) :)
No worries! So glad it helped :)
Yes that is pretty much what I mean - it'd be beneficial to read up on what he actually wrote (i.e. pick up and have a flick through one of his books), but as a starting point this is great! Now I am no expert on White, and this is tricky stuff, so bear with me here, but from my understanding, the 'argument' section means what they believe the driving force of history is, and how it should be constructed. So, if they were, for example Mechanistic, then they believe that there are patterns and laws in history that can and must be identified - they'd adhere to (I believe) a teleological view of history - so Marxist historians are most likely Mechanistic! They see history as not only a progressive system through the various socio-economic structures towards Communism, but also as class struggle (re. "the history of all hitherto societies is the history of the class struggle"). Again, I am no expert - this is at best a watered down interpretation, and at worst completely wrong :P so take this with a grain of salt, but that is what I understand his argument to be!
So are you saying you're interested in looking at the three things mentioned on the website - Emplotment, argument and ideological implication? I actually think that could be a cool structure :) So your question could be "critically analyse the effectiveness and accuracy of Hayden White's concept of 'metahistory'" through an analysis of the interpretations of Richard the Third :) Or did you mean the three ideas that I mentioned (which I also think could work really well!)? If so then what you would want to do is write a paragraph on each, you want to break down the concept or idea in regards to its broader historiographical impact, while also integrating its significance in regards to your case study! Here is an excerpt from my major work to demonstrate what I mean. This was part of my paragraph on postmodernism and the linguistic turn, and how it contributes to the expansion of historiographical thought and critique, while simultaneously disrupting the structure of History, and perverted the central aims and methodologies that governed its construction, contributing to its inevitable transition into its “opposite” (I actually mention Hayden White and tropes here!) Bill O'Reilly was my case study, but as you'll notice, he's not necessarily the driving focus of the extract, more so he is used to demonstrate the validity of my argument.
Question:
"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)
To what extent is the discipline of History experiencing this dialectical dilemma?
Building upon the works of relativist historians – many of whom subscribe to a “bottom-up” approach – the linguistic turn aimed to disrupt “traditional” history, as evident through Hayden White’s assertion that “Postmodernists maintain that all knowledge is not only ‘knowledge about’ particular things but also ‘knowledge for’ particular social groups and cultural projects.” History, according to White, “is in essence nothing more than a literary text,” given that historians present their entirely subjective perspectives through a narrative structure, utilising what White describes as “tropes.” It has been stated many times (including by O’Reilly himself) that as a consequence O’Reilly’s books tend to read more as thrillers than academic texts, which may account for his popularity, as stated himself, “if you can write exciting books you would sell a lot of copies and have movies made of them.”
Therefore, it is evident, according to postmodernists such as White and Keith Jenkins, that subjectivity is an all pervasive force within history, as neither the historian nor his sources can present a neutral perspective. An objective “historical truth” is therefore unattainable. “Interpretation,” as stated by Carr, “is the lifeblood of history,” however this realisation presents a significant problem to the discipline, as it totally negates its supposed principal aim – the search for truth – which in turn completely shatters any shared understanding of what “History” actually is. Along with this, if an objective, undeniable “historical truth” is unattainable, and all historical texts are nothing more than imaginative, literary perspectives upon a historical issue, then all texts must be treated as valid, even though many, such as the works of Bill O’Reilly, are conducted with much less care and integrity.
Hope this helps!
Susie
-
Hi Susie,
I'm sort of understanding this, but I'm now just a bit confused (I think I'm worrying about structure and what ideas to talk about...)
I think my problem in understanding Hayden White's metahistory is that I don't know how to incorporate Richard III into it, and how I could write the essay and make it total the word count requirement.
About 10 minutes ago I just had a revelation about another potential question, but if I were to do this, I'm not sure how I could change it to make it address the 'concept' thing we had going on in the other essay ideas and how to reword it so it doesn't mention Richard III... it was something along the lines of, 'to what extent can Tudor propaganda/myth be creditable as an accurate depiction of Richard III?'
Ahhh for sure it is definitely a hard thing to get around. I think the way you link it to Richard the Third is you look at the various interpretations of him, and you suggest what tropes are being utilised by various historians, and why those historians would utilise them. However if you're not keen then that's a-okay! Your project after all, and if you're not feeling it or you're not passionate about something then steer clear! It's really obvious when a student doesn't have an interest in their subject.
Your question is better, however it is still focusing too much on history rather than historiography. As I said earlier, I think it is better to not have Richard the Third included in the actual question. Bill O'Reilly wasn't included in mine, just within my synopsis I suggested that he would be my principle case study which I would integrate throughout my response. If you want to look at propaganda/myth though then I think that is fine :) Make your question conceptually specific, but historiographically broad if that makes sense. Thinking about propaganda in particular, are you suggesting propaganda that was written at the time? Then maybe your question could be: 'To what extent can a period write their own history?'. Could that work? Then you can look at the way in which Richard the Third portrayed himself at the time through propaganda and whether that is accurate, while dealing with a more sophisticated overhead concept!
Hope this helps!
Susie
-
Hello!
I finally understand everything!!!
So I've come up with a question which is something along the lines of 'a study of the postmodern historiographical thought on the evaluation of historical fiction being equally creditable as historical fact.'
I'm hoping this is what you meant by the question being 'concept' based; and from this I'm hoping to discuss different aspects of the postmodernist dogma, and use Richard III as the case study to show how fiction and factual histories are to a degree similar.
Hopefully this all work out! ;D
Thank you so much Susie for everything you've helped me with and clearing everything up!!
Daniella :) :) :)
Sounds awesome Daniella!! Great work - that is definitely a much more historiographically and conceptually rich thesis :) Well done, if you need any more help please let me know!
Susie