HSC Stuff > HSC Extension History
History Extension Debating Thread (ie. how to develop your "voice")
ee1233:
--- Quote from: Lsjnzy13 on October 21, 2018, 09:57:38 pm ---Heyyyy guys! Don't mind this lonely Victorian history student crashing the thread ;) our hums boards are like ghost towns. And I don't know how HSC extension history works so I'm just randomly throwing my opinion around.
Anyway, regarding the topic, I don't think anyone can be classified a historian. IMO, to be a historian you have to have some background in studying history, but most importantly you have to bring something new to the table while acknowledging different sides of debates and the fact that history is never 100% objective. I think that at our level, as high school history students, most of us are mainly studying the facts - who, what, when, where, how, and why. We're seeing history through the lenses of historians, but mostly none of us can bring in new ideas at this stage. Even when we write source analysis or essays, where we're asked to present our own ideas, we're still mainly drawing from what we've learnt in a textbook.
There's definitely a distinction between someone who is interested in history and someone who investigates every aspect of it. As students I think at the moment we're merely representative of those who have an interest in the field, and who knows? Maybe one day we could become historians. I definitely agree with you on the fact that we're on the pathway of being historians. However achieving such title takes time and effort and it's not something anyone can call themselves. In my opinion, I think that calling students like us historians discredits those who actually spend years of their lives in research. 'Historian' is a title that should be earned.
--- End quote ---
Awesome points! I agree with you in some regards, but I personally don't think that, as history students, we are always regurgitating information from historians. I think students, whether they know it or not, are questioning what they see and, to some degree, are creating an alternate way of thinking about the past!
However, I totally think that the title of 'historian' should be earned - it's one hell of a job! But then there's the question, where do we draw the line between a person who is merely 'interested' in history and someone who 'investigates every aspect of it'. Moreover, can we ever really investigate really aspect of history - history (at least to me) is infinite and subjective. So (I'm bringing out my postmodern side here lol), what is the difference between someone who knows just one 'fact' and someone who has been investigating the past their whole life if there is no such thing as an objective, ultimate truth. Is all out work equally as useless and ficticious, regardless of the effort we put in?
I'm sorry if none of that made sense... It's late and I'm tired - but this has been fun! ;D ;D
katie,rinos:
--- Quote from: owidjaja on October 21, 2018, 04:30:28 pm ---Hey guys,
I know that this debating thread has been inactive for a while but I came across something interesting on Twitter. So a history teacher has asked "Who can be a historian" and there have been a lot of interesting opinions in the thread. Australian historian Michael Molkentin's response caught my eye:
So what do you guys think? Are we history students historians? Do you need to contribute to historical knowledge to be a historian? (Hopefully, this Twitter thread also helps you come up with your own arguments/ideas for this coming exam)
--- End quote ---
Hey,
I think we could be considered historians if we are actively researching more about certain topics and aiming to draw our own conclusions and new interpretations about it (which most of the time we aren’t doing). I think that as students we are mostly ‘parroting’ what we have learnt from the HSC syllabus and the topics that our teachers have taught us. So, if I had written a modern essay in the exams, I wouldn’t be considered a historian because it isn’t a unique perspective (& it’s something that’s been written by thousands of other students).
I wouldn’t consider myself a historian (or even ‘on the path’ atm) because since HSC, I haven’t really actively tried to learn/research a lot more into history (except for music history assignments, which I don’t think really counts-unless you somehow come up with an incredibly new perspective).
I definitely don’t think we’re academic historians either. I didn’t read everything on the Holocaust for my major, and there were heaps of perspectives that I would’ve missed out, even just from abiding with the word limit. I also think that an academic historian would need to spend a lot more time on their works then we did on our major. I think you’d have to have some kind of degree in history to be an academic historian (maybe a PhD) and you’d need to be continuously working on your books/works. They should be professionals (e.g, I’d expect them to know how to properly footnote throughout their works and properly evaluate their sources) whereas we are only just learning these new research skills (and even a year might not be large enough to be competent in these skills to a high academic level).
--- Quote from: owidjaja on October 21, 2018, 09:34:34 pm ---Can I just say thank you guys for contributing to the debate thread :) Trying to revive the debate thread so we can discuss/debate/share ideas (considering how our exam is this coming Friday)
--- End quote ---
Thank you for trying to revive the thread!! ;D Feel free to pick my comments apart! :)
owidjaja:
--- Quote from: Lsjnzy13 on October 21, 2018, 09:57:38 pm ---Heyyyy guys! Don't mind this lonely Victorian history student crashing the thread ;) our hums boards are like ghost towns. And I don't know how HSC extension history works so I'm just randomly throwing my opinion around.
--- End quote ---
Welcome fellow Victorian! Great seeing you here :)
--- Quote from: Lsjnzy13 on October 21, 2018, 09:57:38 pm ---Anyway, regarding the topic, I don't think anyone can be classified a historian. IMO, to be a historian you have to have some background in studying history, but most importantly you have to bring something new to the table while acknowledging different sides of debates and the fact that history is never 100% objective. I think that at our level, as high school history students, most of us are mainly studying the facts - who, what, when, where, how, and why. We're seeing history through the lenses of historians, but mostly none of us can bring in new ideas at this stage. Even when we write source analysis or essays, where we're asked to present our own ideas, we're still mainly drawing from what we've learnt in a textbook.
--- End quote ---
I would agree with you, to a partial extent. I agree with the fact that the title 'historian' shouldn't be used loosely (which is what you go into in the next paragraph) but I'm not sure if I agree with you when it comes to regurgitation. I think history syllabuses are limited but it doesn't stop history students from researching something they're interested in and bring in a new perspective. For example, a lot of people in my Modern class said that Germany caused WW1. I personally think that all the countries caused WW1. Although the syllabus doesn't really touch on historiography (maybe in the Personality section)- unless you're doing History Extension- you're still given room to argue a new idea. I remember one of the HSC markers Phil Mundy saying in his lecture that HSC markers love unique theses. Personally, I wouldn't be brave enough to argue a completely new idea if it's gonna put me in a disadvantaged place since some HSC markers are more biased than others, but it is encouraging that one marker is encouraging us to bring new ideas to the table.
But you do have an excellent argument here- even though teachers try to encourage us to bring new ideas, we're always resorting to the 'easier' perspective.
--- Quote from: ee1233 on October 21, 2018, 10:22:10 pm ---Awesome points! I agree with you in some regards, but I personally don't think that, as history students, we are always regurgitating information from historians. I think students, whether they know it or not, are questioning what they see and, to some degree, are creating an alternate way of thinking about the past!
--- End quote ---
I think you bring an excellent point! Before we knew about the idea of counterfactual history, a lot of people tend to ask 'what if' questions. These days, that's an arguably legitimate topic to study.
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on October 21, 2018, 10:24:59 pm ---I think we could be considered historians if we are actively researching more about certain topics and aiming to draw our own conclusions and new interpretations about it (which most of the time we aren’t doing). I think that as students we are mostly ‘parroting’ what we have learnt from the HSC syllabus and the topics that our teachers have taught us. So, if I had written a modern essay in the exams, I wouldn’t be considered a historian because it isn’t a unique perspective (& it’s something that’s been written by thousands of other students).
--- End quote ---
And I agree with you here! I would also add that if we're researching and investigating the various sides/versions of the past. As HSC students, we don't have the time to go through all the evidence and come up with our own judgements afterwards (Ranke is rolling in his grave lol).
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on October 21, 2018, 10:24:59 pm ---I definitely don’t think we’re academic historians either. I didn’t read everything on the Holocaust for my major, and there were heaps of perspectives that I would’ve missed out, even just from abiding with the word limit. I also think that an academic historian would need to spend a lot more time on their works then we did on our major. I think you’d have to have some kind of degree in history to be an academic historian (maybe a PhD) and you’d need to be continuously working on your books/works. They should be professionals (e.g, I’d expect them to know how to properly footnote throughout their works and properly evaluate their sources) whereas we are only just learning these new research skills (and even a year might not be large enough to be competent in these skills to a high academic level).
--- End quote ---
That's a great point you brought up here! I totally forgot about word limits and time constraints on our Major Works. And that is true, word limits are very annoying because we're not including more perspectives that we could've discussed. As for time constraints, I think that's an interesting thing you bring up because we always constantly talk about how new evidence tends to show up as time passes by. But if we're constantly finding new evidence in the future, then is there any point in producing history now when we know that we haven't completely found all the evidence? But is there such thing as discovering all of the evidence? (I'm slowly spiralling lol)
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on October 21, 2018, 10:24:59 pm ---Thank you for trying to revive the thread!! ;D Feel free to pick my comments apart! :)
--- End quote ---
Great seeing you here Katie! You certainly brought up new points I didn't consider :D
owidjaja:
Hey there,
I have another historiography debate: I was watching The Film Theorist's video on How to Win Oscar Best Picture. You don't have to watch the whole video but he brings up an interesting point. To summarise, the most common ways you can win a Best Picture is to either make a film about a true story or about actors/acting because most of the members of the Academy Awards are men, won an Oscar and have an average age of 62. This was something I noticed (considering how much of an Oscar fan I am). There are so many Best Picture nominees/winners I can list: The Darkest Hour, Dunkirk, The King Speech etc.
My question is: considering how much attention biopics get during Oscar season, do you think Hollywood is exploiting history? Is it even considered ethical?
imogen.b:
(just realised I posted this on the question forum instead of the debating thread, oops!)
Hey everyone,
I was reading the 2016 Question 1 source, and was wondering what you all thought of it? How do you think the changing nature of 'historical evidence' has influenced the way history is constructed today, or even the way earlier historians constructed their history?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version