History Extension Question Thread!

[sl1402]

Hey, I'll try to give you a quick overview of how history has been constructed over time. :
Herotodus:mainly oral sources and prose, no set method.
Bede-Chrisitan history, geological, named sources.
Gibbon-footnotes, used irony.
Macaulay-Direct speech, slavery & bibliographies, optimistic history, wrote in literary style.
Von Ranke-Used Venetian ambassadors, trace God's will through history.
Marx-Economic history, communist based, philosophy.
Annales-multi-disiplined (the use of maps, science, geology, etc. to tell things about the past), non linear, total history.
Carr-scientific, fishmongers analogy, history is interpretation.
Public history-museums, film, television, commemorations, radio.
Foucault-changing concepts over time, archeological method.
Schama-omits footnotes, imagined dialogue.
White-history is fiction,narrative,tropes,figurative language.
Hopefully this helps!
If you have any questions definitely feel free to ask!

Omg, you are a lifesaver! Thanks so much!

[katie,rinos]

Omg, you are a lifesaver! Thanks so much!

Aw, Thanks! Really glad it was helpful!
Good luck for your trials

[GorgGorgenson56]

Hey Susie! I've seen that you have mentioned a lot to not write in a chronological form when writing a historiographical essay. Can you explain why? It's just I have always done a chronological form - Paragraph on Herodotus, then Thucydides, then Bede, then Von Ranke, then post modernist historians etc. and I was never told to do other wise by my teachers and still got a pretty good mark.

George

[sudodds]

Hey Susie! I've seen that you have mentioned a lot to not write in a chronological form when writing a historiographical essay. Can you explain why? It's just I have always done a chronological form - Paragraph on Herodotus, then Thucydides, then Bede, then Von Ranke, then post modernist historians etc. and I was never told to do other wise by my teachers and still got a pretty good mark.

George

This was something that from day one, my history extension teacher told us to avoid. Reason being, writing a chronology isn't writing historiography - it is writing the history of historiography. It's saying "this is what historiography was like at this point, then this point, then this point", rather than demonstrating your own views and opinions, and critically evaluating the shifts in historiography. It is also it rather limiting, in that writing a chronology means that the key debate and issue that most people will be dealing with is purely the role of context - which yes, is super important, but doesn't necessarily leave much room to discuss in depth say the debate between public and private history, or the impact of popular culture etc. Furthermore, it is very easy for a chronology to appear as a pre-prepared essay. Many people end up relying on this structure, and then try to apply say Herodotus and the Ancient historians to everything, even when they may not actually be applicable to the question or the source.

That is why when writing a history extension essay, it is, in my opinion, better to focus on ideas and debates, that are cross-contextual, eg. public v private history, social history, the nature of truth and objectivity, historical methodologies, pop culture, new forms of communication and technology, etc. etc. It just looks more sophisticated, and typically will result in a stronger essay. You can still intergrate historians for different contexts/times and discuss how these context/times shaped their interpretation, it is just allowing you to demonstrate your own voice and opinions a lot further, and more in depth.

[GorgGorgenson56]

Thanks for the feedback Susie! The question in my half yearly for question 1 was about how over time, forms of historical communication has significantly changed and advanced and the effect it has on the way history has been constructed and recorded over time (which I scored 21/25). I used a pretty strict chronological order on this question because I felt it was the right way to do it in contrast to a practise question I did on the conflict between academic and popular history in which I found that writing a chronological order was more difficult. Would you say that it really depends on the question given and the key debates/ideas discussed in the given source?

[sudodds]

Thanks for the feedback Susie! The question in my half yearly for question 1 was about how over time, forms of historical communication has significantly changed and advanced and the effect it has on the way history has been constructed and recorded over time (which I scored 21/25). I used a pretty strict chronological order on this question because I felt it was the right way to do it in contrast to a practise question I did on the conflict between academic and popular history in which I found that writing a chronological order was more difficult. Would you say that it really depends on the question given and the key debates/ideas discussed in the given source?

Though I have no doubt that you wrote a fantastic essay (21/25 is a really good mark, well done!), even in that instance I personally would shy away from using a chronological structure, for the reasons that I outlined, and would instead, rather than focus on the different periods of time and explain how they were distinct, instead focus on what actually contributed to change - so still focusing on ideas and concepts, rather than the history of historiography.. So rather than structure that essay according to the different schools and periods, I would probably structure it this way (hypothetically, if the source dealt with these issues).

- Impact of new research
- Impact of new technology
- Impact of new ideas, values and ideology

[Never.Give.Up]

Hey!!!
This is a random question....
but.. how do i know if i have the ability to do history ext???
what sort of marks should I be getting in say modern to be able to tell whether i can do it??? just on average???
i guess it comes down to hard work, but the skills have got to be there, don't they???
thanks

[GorgGorgenson56]

To what extent is the conflict between academic and popular history?

I'm having trouble in what specifics to argue in this question. I've planned out a bit of a "vs" structure where I take an academic example of history and contrast it against popular (Herodotus' histories vs the movie "300") showing the difference between there aims but I don't entirely understand the "conflict" part of the question. Is there another approach you would take on the question? Am I doing it wrong?

George

[mitchello]

Yoyoyo, If i were to add my two cents about each question:

Hey!!!
This is a random question....
but.. how do i know if i have the ability to do history ext???
what sort of marks should I be getting in say modern to be able to tell whether i can do it??? just on average???
i guess it comes down to hard work, but the skills have got to be there, don't they???
thanks

DO IT, DO IT, DO IT (peer pressure chant). It's your engagement, not giftedness in a subject that should determine whether or not you pick it up. If it turns out not to be for you, you can always drop it and no harm done (this won't happen). And if you're still uncertain, you can always talk to your history teacher, who should give a similar response. Honestly, its a very different kind of history to the ancient or modern you do; there's far more freedom and it is way less content-bound.

To what extent is the conflict between academic and popular history?

I'm having trouble in what specifics to argue in this question. I've planned out a bit of a "vs" structure where I take an academic example of history and contrast it against popular (Herodotus' histories vs the movie "300") showing the difference between there aims but I don't entirely understand the "conflict" part of the question. Is there another approach you would take on the question? Am I doing it wrong?

George

Hey, not sure if my answer will be as viable as Susie's, but I'm sure she'll respond to you soon. I'll try give you some examples rather than structure (which is not my speciality): '300' is a great example of popular history, but in a "vs" scenario, i'm not sure that Herodotus is a prime example of academic history - I'm pretty sure his works were a shoddy (from our perspective) narrative: many call him "Father of History, Father of Lies".
Here is an article by David Greenberg that I've used in a 'What is History?' essay, which provides an academic discussion of several popular histories (probs just read the first one on '1776' to get an idea of what I mean, its a good resource for this debate).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_book_blitz/features/2005/that_barnes_noble_dream/academics_historians_vs_popularizers.html
Another example I used was that Simpson's episode where Lisa discovers the "true nature" of Jebediah Springfield, who the town was celebrating in a big ol' parade (turns out he was a vicious pirate or something). But when she tries to tell the public she realises the value of their misguided sentiment (everyone was having a ball cause of Jeb) and decides to bury the discovery - the truth - in exchange for the public's history. This is quite reflective of popular methodology, which reciprocates public idealism in order to gain a greater following (this wasn't what Lisa was doing, but the historical consequences are identical)
One that I'm yet to use (and I'm sure that Susie will approve of) is Bill O'Reilly in 'Killing Reagan'. Here, O'Reilly neglects to interview those with valuable insight into his subject, as it would be suboptimal to his big claim of Reagan's mental unfitness for president (obviously I don't know loads on the topic, definitely ask Susie if you're interested). Again, distorting or deliberately selecting evidence to suit an agenda
Academic history I have to apologise for a lack of examples, I used quotes from Greenberg in that article (calling academic history “narrowly focused, politically correct and jargon-clotted”, although he is an academic), and I quoted Von Ranke several times. My academic paragraphs are generally less supported by evidence.
Anyways, hope this helped someone

[sudodds]

Hey!!!
This is a random question....
but.. how do i know if i have the ability to do history ext???
what sort of marks should I be getting in say modern to be able to tell whether i can do it??? just on average???
i guess it comes down to hard work, but the skills have got to be there, don't they???
thanks

Hey! As mitchello said, DEFINITELY give history extension a go. There isn't a subject that changed my worldview and opinions more than that subject, it's insane how impactful it was. In terms of skills, I really think it is a subject that everyone walks into as a "clean slate" so to speak. Yes there are the basic skills that will help; being able to write an essay, sophisticated use of language, ability to think conceptually, etc. etc., but for the most part, everyone is thrown into the deep end - no one is "naturally" good at history extension. With that in mind, I don't believe there is a mark that you should reach in your two unit history course that will justify you doing history extension. Though yes, if you were getting a band 2 in modern I might be hesitant to suggest doing extension, but that would more so be cause it appears you aren't very passionate about the subject, rather than a comment on your 'ability' to do well - because history extension relies on passion. Any subject that requires a major work does! You need to be passionate in order to put in the amount of effort required to succeed - because I would BS ya, the subject is hard and requires a lot of time and energy to do well. However, with that being said, I do believe that the subject load is still manageable - I studied 12 units last year, including Drama which basically means two more major works, but I never felt history extension to be a burden

Susie

[Never.Give.Up]

Hey! As mitchello said, DEFINITELY give history extension a go. There isn't a subject that changed my worldview and opinions more than that subject, it's insane how impactful it was. In terms of skills, I really think it is a subject that everyone walks into as a "clean slate" so to speak. Yes there are the basic skills that will help; being able to write an essay, sophisticated use of language, ability to think conceptually, etc. etc., but for the most part, everyone is thrown into the deep end - no one is "naturally" good at history extension. With that in mind, I don't believe there is a mark that you should reach in your two unit history course that will justify you doing history extension. Though yes, if you were getting a band 2 in modern I might be hesitant to suggest doing extension, but that would more so be cause it appears you aren't very passionate about the subject, rather than a comment on your 'ability' to do well - because history extension relies on passion. Any subject that requires a major work does! You need to be passionate in order to put in the amount of effort required to succeed - because I would BS ya, the subject is hard and requires a lot of time and energy to do well. However, with that being said, I do believe that the subject load is still manageable - I studied 12 units last year, including Drama which basically means two more major works, but I never felt history extension to be a burden

Susie

Thanks Susie and mitchello!!
my history and english teachers are both encouraging me to do it so...
i am definitely keen to give it a go, but I'll probably have to drop a subject so that I'm not doing 14 units!!!

[sudodds]

To what extent is the conflict between academic and popular history?

I'm having trouble in what specifics to argue in this question. I've planned out a bit of a "vs" structure where I take an academic example of history and contrast it against popular (Herodotus' histories vs the movie "300") showing the difference between there aims but I don't entirely understand the "conflict" part of the question. Is there another approach you would take on the question? Am I doing it wrong?

George

Hey! So to add onto mitchello's already fantastic response (you're absolutely killing it man), here is my two cents on this question When I look at this question, particularly the conflict aspect, immediately my brain jumps beyond just the differences between the two, but the implications of these differences. The conflict arises through the dominance of one form of history over the other.

Remember that popular history doesn't just include movies, but also actual history texts that are produced for mass consumption and entertainment, rather than serving a purely academic purpose. Niall Ferguson is a popular historian. Bill O'Reilly is a popular historian. Eric Hobsbawm is a popular historian, etc. etc. Their works are typically more accessible - both in terms of the content in that it is easier to understand and digest, but also in its physical and financial accessibility. As these texts are typically more accessible, more and more people are consuming them, in comparison to academic history, which is typically A LOT more expensive (sometimes even unattainable), a lot more dense, and a lot harder to understand. So, with that in mind, what form of history is going to be more successful, at least monetarily (as we live in a capitalist society, this does tend to be the way in which me define success). However, many academic historians and scholars see this as promoting the decline in historical scholarship, as now technically "anyone" can be a historian - not just someone with a PHD. Along with this, popular history inherently has the aim of mass publication, and to attract an audience, rather than the (supposedly) purer intentions of academic history to educate. This will of course impact the way in which popular history works are constructed, as popular historian Bill O'Reilly even states; “if you can write exciting books you would sell a lot of copies and have movies made of them.”

With that in mind, the way that I would personally structure a response (in a dream world, where this structure also fits with the stimulus provided);

- What is a historian? - Looking at what actual constitutes a historian, and to what extent academic historians can claim "ownership" of the discipline (would integrate postmodernism throughout this paragraph).
- Expanding Discipline - looking at how the actual discipline if history has expanded to incorporate newer forms and styles of history, eg. social history, which has expanded the audience for history, and thus increased the demand for public consumption, supplied by popular historians.
- Commodification and politicisation of history - Looking at how history has now become a popular form of entertainment, money in history (Bill Gates ties to 'Big History'), and also how popular history can be used to legitimise political actions, both past, present and future, meaning is popular history more relevant? (linking Niall Ferguson, and how his histories serve to legitimise US imperialism).

Hope this makes sense! Remember that there is no, one way to write a history extension essay - you don't have to focus on the exact issues I raised, these are just stuff that I would have focused on last year if I were faced with this question The beauty of history extension is that every essay is unique (unless you're writing a chronology aha, then your essay is likely to look very similar to the tonnes of other students also writing a chronology).

Hope this helps, if you have any more questions please let me know!

Susie

[sudodds]

Thanks Susie and mitchello!!
my history and english teachers are both encouraging me to do it so...
i am definitely keen to give it a go, but I'll probably have to drop a subject so that I'm not doing 14 units!!!

I dropped 2 unit maths to pick up history extension, and I don't regret that decision for a second

[GorgGorgenson56]

Alright so how do I prepare for the HSC exam for this subject

[sudodds]

Alright so how do I prepare for the HSC exam for this subject

Hey GorgGorgenson!
Really the only way that I prepared for the HSC exam for history extension was by doing past papers, and getting them marked by my teacher! Practice really does make perfect with history extension essays, because they are so different to all the other ones you can do!

However, there are some other things that I recommend, if you get bored just doing past papers all the time You can post a response to the Debate thread, where you can test out arguments, discuss ideas and debate other members of the community (I'll hopefully be responding to everyone tonight!). Read historiographical works, to expand your knowledge of sources and absorb new ideas and information. Construct an argument table, going through all the key historiographical debates for both Section I and Section II, identifying for and against, but also which historians support what and why/how!

Hope this helps,

Susie