History Extension Question Thread!

[Maraos]

Impossible aha, cos that would require me knowing the sources as well since they're so intrinsically related! Sorry !

Haha no worries, better hope for something good then

[sudodds]

Haha no worries, better hope for something good then

In my opinion, Extension questions normally are pretty good The subject definitely is hard - but the exams themselves are accessible for history extension students. What I mean by that is unlike Modern/Ancient exams were they may use complex wording, or mention more specific details in questions in order to catch out those students who treat the subjects like a bludge, nobody picks up history extension because it's a bludge (or at least, if they did, they're trés stupidé), they pick it up because they genuinely have a passion for history. Thus, the ppl who make the paper don't want to punish you guys, they want to give you an accessible/fair paper, so you can truely show your stuff!

[Maraos]

Should your topic sentences for the 'what is history?' question be based off the main points raised in the source or should you try to directly answer the question in each and every topic sentence. I've always picked out main arguments/ideas raised in the source and used them in each of my topic sentences whilst also linking to the question.
Would this be the best approach? Or should i approach it differently

[sudodds]

The best way to go about it is to directly answer the question through the main points raised in the source! You don't necessarily have to directly quote the source in your judgement, but as you want your essay to continually relate, that would definitely be the best way moving forward Sounds like you are approaching it well as you are now!

[Maraos]

(Image removed from quote.)

The best way to go about it is to directly answer the question through the main points raised in the source! You don't necessarily have to directly quote the source in your judgement, but as you want your essay to continually relate, that would definitely be the best way moving forward Sounds like you are approaching it well as you are now!

Hahah nice meme

Thanks for the clarification, this was always a bit of a gray area with my teacher he never made it clear.....

[Zainbow]

Are we going to make an exam discussion thread for HIX?

[sudodds]

Are we going to make an exam discussion thread for HIX?

Just did ;)

[Zainbow]

nvm I just saw it

[kensie08]

Hey!

I've just started History Extension, and am trying make a start on my major work. I was thinking of possibly looking at changing interpretations of Agrippina the Younger in regards to the rise of the Feminist approach and "Bottom-Up" history, and using historians like Tacitus and Dio vs Barrett and Ginsburg.
I was hoping someone could let me know what they thought as this is the first year it has run at my school so I don't have many points of reference!

Thanks!!

[theyam]

Hey guys,

So my topic at the moment is: Critiquing the Traditionalist Narrative via a Revisionist Lens: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings. But I've just been noted by suddods that I might end up describing the two views rather than actually critically analysing them. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I could avoid that, or possibly any unique approaches?

Thanks!!

[sudodds]

Hey!

I've just started History Extension, and am trying make a start on my major work. I was thinking of possibly looking at changing interpretations of Agrippina the Younger in regards to the rise of the Feminist approach and "Bottom-Up" history, and using historians like Tacitus and Dio vs Barrett and Ginsburg.
I was hoping someone could let me know what they thought as this is the first year it has run at my school so I don't have many points of reference!

Thanks!!

Hey! I studied Agrippina in ancient history - she's absolutely facinating! Probably my favourite topic in ancient, and there are definitely a lot of historiographical debates that you can explore! I love how you are already considering feminist history and "bottom-up" history - ie. already looking at the "concepts" rather than the historiographical content. What I would suggest is making sure that that remains the focus, and that you also have an interesting/unique thesis. Don't just describe the differing interpretations - try and find a unifying theme. I think noting the consistency of "femininity" as a theme throughout all histories of Agrippina could work well! Ie. Looking at how, no matter what interpretation, her status as a woman is the defining feature. You could also look at how she is consistently portrayed through literary tropes (ie. evil stepmother, seducer, hypermasculine female commander) etc. etc.

Yeah, just make sure that you have an actual argument - not just listing off different opinions

Hope this helps!

Susie

[sudodds]

Hey guys,

So my topic at the moment is: Critiquing the Traditionalist Narrative via a Revisionist Lens: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings. But I've just been noted by suddods that I might end up describing the two views rather than actually critically analysing them. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I could avoid that, or possibly any unique approaches?

Thanks!!

Basically, what I mean by describing is that a very common structure for a major work is:

Introduction
Paragraph 1 - Context (basically just the history of the event)
Paragraph 2 - Perspective 1
Paragraph 3 - Perspective 2
Conclusion

The person writing the report doesn't engage in the debate itself, or critically analyse the existence of the debate, but rather just outlines each side. Best way to avoid this is to find a thematic or conceptual through line - like the impact of (insert historiographical concept here) on the differing interpretations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I just had a thought - feel free to discount it, but from what I know about the event (which tbh isn't very much), Hiroshima and Nagasaki remains culturally relevant universally for sure, as it ended WWII, but also within the United States and Japan specifically. A great way to understand cultural significance is to look at national history, and how it is taught in schools - ie. through textbooks. Analysing the way that WWII history (in particular the dropping of the A-bomb) through both Japanese and American textbooks could be very interesting, and could provide insight into the significance of national narratives (i'd have a read of "Nations and Nationalism" by Eric Hobsbawm if you want to give this a go)? You could also maybe look at the concept of morality and ethics in history, and how historians have to grapple with these concepts - especially with such a controversial topic as Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Like, a lot of historians of the event focus on whether or not it was ethical or "right" to do so - but is that even something that can be determined given the subjectivity of morality itself?

Hope this helps Just some stuff to think about!

Susie

[kensie08]

Hey! I studied Agrippina in ancient history - she's absolutely facinating! Probably my favourite topic in ancient, and there are definitely a lot of historiographical debates that you can explore! I love how you are already considering feminist history and "bottom-up" history - ie. already looking at the "concepts" rather than the historiographical content. What I would suggest is making sure that that remains the focus, and that you also have an interesting/unique thesis. Don't just describe the differing interpretations - try and find a unifying theme. I think noting the consistency of "femininity" as a theme throughout all histories of Agrippina could work well! Ie. Looking at how, no matter what interpretation, her status as a woman is the defining feature. You could also look at how she is consistently portrayed through literary tropes (ie. evil stepmother, seducer, hypermasculine female commander) etc. etc.

Yeah, just make sure that you have an actual argument - not just listing off different opinions

Hope this helps!

Susie

Thanks so much, thats really helpful!

[Jett321]

Thank you for the information! Just a quick question in regards to the diary, is it allowed if it takes an online form or is that something that will depend on my teacher. Also, I've only recently begun inquiring into an area that I think i'll do for my major and my idea is a bit too broad. I wanted to look into the omission of gay history or rather a 'gay' interpretation of history, do you have any recommendations on how to begin, explore this concept or would you happen to know any historians with that approach to any era fo history. Any help would be fantastic

[sudodds]

Thank you for the information! Just a quick question in regards to the diary, is it allowed if it takes an online form or is that something that will depend on my teacher. Also, I've only recently begun inquiring into an area that I think i'll do for my major and my idea is a bit too broad. I wanted to look into the omission of gay history or rather a 'gay' interpretation of history, do you have any recommendations on how to begin, explore this concept or would you happen to know any historians with that approach to any era fo history. Any help would be fantastic

In regards to your first question, that depends on your teacher I'm afraid. At my school we could do our logs online, but I can't speak for other schools as it is marked internally. In regards to your potential major work topic, I think that sounds super interesting! I'm not super well-versed however in the area, so I'm not really sure what to suggest. I definitely recommend doing some reading up on the concept of social history/bottom-up history. Though that it's specifically lgbtqi history, lgbtqi history would fall under that bracket. In terms of case studies, Stonewall may be a good one to look at? Lgbtqi history pre and post Stonewall?

Hope this helps!

Susie