HSC Stuff > HSC Extension History
History Extension Debating Thread (ie. how to develop your "voice")
sudodds:
Just watched another super funny video, this time from TV show 'Adam Ruins Everything'! (started on College Humour by Adam Conover :))) The clip is titled How Prostitutes Settled the Wild West, and basically goes into the hidden history of 'Wild West' America, and the really significant contributions made by women (particularly in Wyoming) that no one seems to know about!
When we think 'Wild West', most of us probably picture a white, male, gun toting cowboy. However, according to this clip (which references a bunch of sources mind!), the towns and settlements would not have even come to be without the lucrative, buisness savy minds of many women, who utilised prostitution to achieve massive wealth, status and power within the communities! Many towns were built around these women-owned, women-ran brothels!
I found this really interesting, and I think it relates very keenly to a topic that has been mentioned a few times throughout this thread - the conflict between Great Men/Top-down History, and Social/Grassroots/Bottom-up History! It also can be linked quite clearly to the concept of Gender History, and Feminist History (because they are actually different things - if anyone can give me the reason why they get extra brownie points ;) )
So my question is - why do you think that the history of the women of the Wild West has been neglected? Do you think the history of women (and other minority groups) has been neglected period?
Can't wait to hear what you guys come up with (I did part of my major work on this historiographical idea ;) )!
Susie
alethea:
--- Quote from: sudodds on July 01, 2017, 11:27:24 pm ---Just watched another super funny video, this time from TV show 'Adam Ruins Everything'! (started on College Humour by Adam Conover :))) The clip is titled How Prostitutes Settled the Wild West, and basically goes into the hidden history of 'Wild West' America, and the really significant contributions made by women (particularly in Wyoming) that no one seems to know about!
When we think 'Wild West', most of us probably picture a white, male, gun toting cowboy. However, according to this clip (which references a bunch of sources mind!), the towns and settlements would not have even come to be without the lucrative, buisness savy minds of many women, who utilised prostitution to achieve massive wealth, status and power within the communities! Many towns were built around these women-owned, women-ran brothels!
I found this really interesting, and I think it relates very keenly to a topic that has been mentioned a few times throughout this thread - the conflict between Great Men/Top-down History, and Social/Grassroots/Bottom-up History! It also can be linked quite clearly to the concept of Gender History, and Feminist History (because they are actually different things - if anyone can give me the reason why they get extra brownie points ;) )
So my question is - why do you think that the history of the women of the Wild West has been neglected? Do you think the history of women (and other minority groups) has been neglected period?
Can't wait to hear what you guys come up with (I did part of my major work on this historiographical idea ;) )!
Susie
--- End quote ---
The reason the women of the Wild West have been neglected is because history writers would have excluded female voices - either through choosing sources written by men instead of sources written by the prostitutes or brothel owners, or because of a lack of available evidence showing womens role.
Another reason why the history of women has been excluded is due to the nature of public history and discourse. The majority of the populace know about the Wild West through films like The Magnificent Seven (1960 classic or 2016 remake) or A Fistful of Dollars (1964) which portray female characters as damsels of distress and focus on the ‘cowboys’ instead of the lives of the women.
Interestingly, while the video only focuses on how the women have been excluded from history, people of colour have also been neglected in the history of the Wild West. This article in the Atlantic (available:https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/10/how-the-west-was-lost/502850/) discusses the inaccuracy of Hollywood only representing white male figures as this is an “exclusionary account of American history “as people of colour were not only present at the inception of the Wild West—but they were also its primary architects.”
sudodds:
--- Quote from: alethea on July 02, 2017, 04:58:59 pm ---The reason the women of the Wild West have been neglected is because history writers would have excluded female voices - either through choosing sources written by men instead of sources written by the prostitutes or brothel owners, or because of a lack of available evidence showing womens role.
--- End quote ---
Do you think that this is an issue of active sexism? Do you think that the historians of the time were actively attempting to cover up the experiences and contributions of women, or do you think that it was more of just an example of neglect? Either way there are definitely feminist implications, however I think basically what I am wondering is whether or not you think that this was deliberate censorship, or just that in our patriarchal society historians either a) didn't really care about the role of women in comparison to the role of men, b) understood that the public didn't really care about the role of women, and thus wrote their histories to suit public demand? Hope I explained this correctly haha.
I think the lack of available evidence argument is really interesting! Why do you think that there is a lack of available evidence? Do you think that a lack of evidence means that history is impossible? For my major work, for one of my paragraphs I looked at how social historians, due to a lack of evidence pertaining to their focus areas, have to use "sociological imagination" in order to fill in the gaps - essentially making educated guesses. Do you think that by doing this, they are perverting history? Or do you think that the application of sociological imagination is necessary, and that it does not invalidate social history?
--- Quote from: alethea on July 02, 2017, 04:58:59 pm ---Another reason why the history of women has been excluded is due to the nature of public history and discourse. The majority of the populace know about the Wild West through films like The Magnificent Seven (1960 classic or 2016 remake) or A Fistful of Dollars (1964) which portray female characters as damsels of distress and focus on the ‘cowboys’ instead of the lives of the women.
--- End quote ---
REALLY interesting and valid point! I also love how you have provided examples, these would be great to incorporate within your essays! I definitely agree that the role of popular media and entertainment can have a significant impact upon the way in which we perceive history. As mentioned earlier, Disney's 'Pocahontas' has pretty much rewritten history, as have many other historical fiction films such as 'Titanic' and 'Schindler's List' - the public are more likely to consume this form of media, than read a big wordy history book, thus cinema and fiction often have a more powerful and authoritative role in history than many historians!
Again, you can definitely link this portrayal to views of gender - the image of a damsel in distress; the physically weak, attractive girl who needs to be "saved" by the big, burly cowboy - definitely has sexist implications. I think you can take this even further as well, into the way in which society views prostitutes and prostitution! They mention this in the video, but there is the sense that the occupation is unbefitting of a lady, and that those who take part are somehow lesser - despite the fact that as clearly demonstrated through the video, prostitution allowed for many women of the time to achieve financial independence and even social status and dominance! Of course - this wouldn't have been every woman's experience, and I think that the video fails to translate that (I'm sure there were many women who would have preferred to not take part but were forced to). However, either way societies views of prostitutes definitely would have shaped film portrayals. It's just not something people necessarily want to think about or have portrayed - particularly in films that may have a younger audience. The damsel in distress is the picture of innocence, and thus though she may not be as historically accurate, is more fictionally appealing - which may account for her prevalence as a character throughout Western movies, in comparison to the successful, lucrative prostitute.
--- Quote from: alethea on July 02, 2017, 04:58:59 pm ---Interestingly, while the video only focuses on how the women have been excluded from history, people of colour have also been neglected in the history of the Wild West. This article in the Atlantic (available:https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/10/how-the-west-was-lost/502850/) discusses the inaccuracy of Hollywood only representing white male figures as this is an “exclusionary account of American history “as people of colour were not only present at the inception of the Wild West—but they were also its primary architects.”
--- End quote ---
Very very interesting point! Women's voices definitely aren't the only ones being excluded, other groups in society, such as, as you said, African Americans, but also Native Americans, Asians, Latinx, working classes, LGBTQ, etc. have also been unfairly under-represented throughout history. Thankfully, social history as a discipline has allowed for an expansion in our understanding of these groups, but as you mentioned earlier, a lack of sources makes a complete and thorough analysis of their role really difficult. No one bothered to record African American achievements throughout history, and thus their achievements and contributions have gone un noticed.
I'm curious - what is your opinion of Black History Month? This is a very active debate right now, particularly in America. On the one hand, it means an active push to make sure that black voices are being heard and recognised throughout history, and is also a push just for history in general to reach a wider audience! However some have argued that it promotes an oversimplification of history, similar in the way that 'Big Men history' oversimplifies history according to the achievements and contributions of white men. (there have been a lot of other arguments against Black History Month as you can imagine, most of them stemming from ideas in regards to racism (and the controversial idea of "reverse racism") rather than the historiographical implications. As much as I think this is a really important topic to be discussed, for the purposes of this thread lets stick to the more historiographical ideas :) ). In my opinion, I think Black History Month is a good thing :) Anything to further celebrate history, but also I do think it is important to make a conscious effort to try and right the historical wrong of past historical producers in their neglect of black history.
Thank so much for contributing your thoughts! You present some super interesting arguments :) Would love to hear more about your opinions further!
Susie
bellerina:
This isn't paragraphs -obviously- just my overall arguments summed up in three dot-points.
Question: To what extent do historians 'own' history? (2011)
Statement: Whilst Historians significantly influence and thereby impact the a wide range of histories through their interpretation and construction, the notion that history is owned by historians is no longer true.
- In today’s society, history can be written by the wider public (you don’t have to be a “historian” to research and write history)
- Historians aren’t the only ones who are able to provide “historical truth” there are many ways of representing historical truth e.g. showing history through film and media
- History is always continuously changing as society changes e.g. in earlier time, there was that concept that history is looking at the ‘great man’ view but as society changes the concept of what ‘history’ should be changes too. Now, there is the idea of social history which tries to extend its research upon all members of the society, and concentrating on the social, economic and cultural institutions
Give me harsh feedback because I don’t feel like my arguments make any sense!! And, what historians/sources should I look for? If I go with these arguments, that is. Any ideas?
I know I was thinking of using sources: History at the Movies: Using Historical Films in History, HTA Article, March 2001, By Daniel Reynaud/ History Goes to the Movies by Marnie Hughes-Warrington for my second argument
sudodds:
--- Quote from: bellerina on July 10, 2017, 11:10:58 pm ---This isn't paragraphs -obviously- just my overall arguments summed up in three dot-points.
Question: To what extent do historians 'own' history? (2011)
Statement: Whilst Historians significantly influence and thereby impact the a wide range of histories through their interpretation and construction, the notion that history is owned by historians is no longer true.
--- End quote ---
Awesome judgement! Nice and nuanced - interesting addition that it is "no longer" true. So you think it was true to begin with?
--- Quote from: bellerina on July 10, 2017, 11:10:58 pm ---- In today’s society, history can be written by the wider public (you don’t have to be a “historian” to research and write history)
--- End quote ---
Definitely a great point! In previous generations, the qualification to be a historian was a PHD, something only a few small, select group of individuals possess (or have the ability to possess in the future - university wasn't the most accessible to various groups of individuals - link to social history perhaps ;) ).Furthermore, we didn't always have the internet, and "history books" and sources were also fairly inaccessible. Either you had to be a member of the university to access the texts, or pretty wealthy (because academic history books are fck'n expensive!) Though many still consider this the baseline, this is definitely a dying belief. Public history and popular history has definitely broadened the Discipline in unprecedented ways. History books are now regularly consumed by "ordinary" individuals, and these books are by nature of the way in which they were written more accessible (potentially more narrative, less bulky etc. etc.). Along with this, they aren't just consuming history books, but other forms of media, particularly documentaries are becoming more and more prevalent!
So overall - stellar point :) However make sure that you fully determine what a historian actually is, because the lines can be blurred. Is a historian someone with a PHD who writes history, or is it anyone who writes history??
--- Quote from: bellerina on July 10, 2017, 11:10:58 pm ---- Historians aren’t the only ones who are able to provide “historical truth” there are many ways of representing historical truth e.g. showing history through film and media
--- End quote ---
My first point there - is historical truth actually a thing? Is historical truth objective, or is it subjective? This is an important distinction, because in my opinion, film by its very nature is not truth, just a representation of a supposed truth. The reason I think this is because it is scripted - we have no idea what individuals actually said, how they said it, what they meant by it etc. etc. Sets and costumes can never be 100% accurate, at least in my opinion. So rather than film and media allowing more ways to provide historical truth, maybe they broaden the discipline in other ways? Historians don't own history, because media, through creating popular discourse, owns history. Think about it, more people are watching the movie 'Titanic' than reading about the actual event, thus our understanding of the event is shaped by the film, creating a new "history" that dominates that created by historians!
--- Quote from: bellerina on July 10, 2017, 11:10:58 pm ---- History is always continuously changing as society changes e.g. in earlier time, there was that concept that history is looking at the ‘great man’ view but as society changes the concept of what ‘history’ should be changes too. Now, there is the idea of social history which tries to extend its research upon all members of the society, and concentrating on the social, economic and cultural institutions
--- End quote ---
LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE!!!!! Part of my major work looked at this, definitely a really strong argument to make! Don't have much to add here, you've hit the nail on the head with this one :) If you have any specific questions about this issue though let me know because I'd love to have a discussion with you about it :D
--- Quote from: bellerina on July 10, 2017, 11:10:58 pm ---Give me harsh feedback because I don’t feel like my arguments make any sense!! And, what historians/sources should I look for? If I go with these arguments, that is. Any ideas?
I know I was thinking of using sources: History at the Movies: Using Historical Films in History, HTA Article, March 2001, By Daniel Reynaud/ History Goes to the Movies by Marnie Hughes-Warrington for my second argument
--- End quote ---
I was always told to avoid Marnie Hughes-Warrington as a source, as a lot of her works are more so textbooks than works of historiography. What I'd be looking at is contemporary examples of films - Schindler's List would be a good example, as Spielburg made a big deal of the fact that his film was historically accurate because they used a whopping TWO sources for each issue (omg wow two what a high number... ???). Examples of popular historians include Bill O'Reilly (utter shite), Niall Ferguson (opinions are utter shite but good historian nonetheless) and Eric Hobsbawm (the king). I'd also have a look at David Christian and his book/concept 'Big History', just because it also deals with the issue of historians don't own history - money owns history (because Bill Gates is a massive fan, and has funded the research to such an extent that he is trying to get it to be included in school curriculums). The classic EH Carr is never a bad inclusion. For social history I suggest looking at John Vincent :)
Hope this helps!! Great work :)
Susie
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version