I liked what Blaine had to say but I have an additional observation. If all historians are a product of their time or "ethos" then we also are a product of our time and "ethos." That being the case it has made me wonder what are the sentiments and themes of our generation. I think because of 9/11 our generation is faced with a question of security or liberties? I also think our generation can be categorized by a major swing in view of governmental control. After 9/11 Americans were willing to give up all liberties for safety and security. George Bush had the mandate of the people but now 6 years later people are now rejecting that mandate. People now rebel against government authority and criticize Bush for his aggressive anti-terror policies. In music we see some anti-war sentiment (Green Day and the Dixie Chicks). Bush and the government is eve starting to lose the support of suburban America. In a lot of ways there are strong similarities to our "ethos" and that of the 60s. The major difference is that America's current rebellion against authority hasn't led to any liberal social revolution.

Gaddis' book definately raised some interesting points about the role of historians. I don't know if I necessarily agree with all his ideas, but he definately gets you thinking about history and the role of historians in making it. I specifically liked the argument he made comparing history to a landscape. It is clear in the forefront but as you get farther and farther away from the subject it gets blurry and confused. Everyone can see the subject, but accurately portraying the entire landscape is the challenge historians must overcome. During my wikipedia project I definately saw how true this was. One of my stubs had a wealth of information while one of them was very hard to find anything on. I had to expand my search to find info on one and narrow my search on the other. I liked Blaine's point about everything being related because in history it does seem like events are connected. Basically history is very hard to define because the decisions about what is history are made by humans. It is important to remember this and challenge history because it is a living thing.

As for the final exam I liked the format of the midterm. The take home portion gave us time to put down all our ideas but the in class portion gave us a chance to reflect everything we studied and went over in class.

Good point Mason. In discussing the ethos of the sixties yesterday, Reeser and I came to the conclusion that the sixties weren't as unique as everyone thinks they are. Sure, they have some very interesting events happen and many things come to a head in the sixties, but if you look at the twenties, the same thing is happening. It is the sixties, however, that gets the brunt of this definition because it is closer to our own time. We know people who were alive in the sixties, we hear stories from the sixties, and watch movies about the sixties. None of this happens for the twenties, and why? Simply because it was farther away. It's not as if the twenties are any less important or had any less impact on society, it is simply that the sixties are the forground of the painting with the twenties being that river in the background, a little blurry and not the center of the painting. That is what I liked about this book so much, it explains why we study and remember the sixties in such great detail, but leave out the twenties almost entirely.

Biased, self-promoting, arrogant, and grossly overgeneralized. Those were just a few of the phrases that kept recurring in my head as I read the Gaddis book. Obviously, I must be missing something here because, by the criteria we were told to focus on before reading a book (i.e. authority of the author, publisher, etc.), all of these people are a lot smarter than I am. Then again, at times I was convinced that Oxford published this because Gaddis devoted so much time to sucking up to the town of Oxford and how much he loves it (p. 131-134). Gaddis obviously approached this book with a specific agenda. His treatment of the social sciences overgeneralizes their processes and wrongly accuses them of taking great leaps backward in the scientific process (moving away from the historian's island, as Gaddis says). At the same time he claims the "hard sciences" have discovered that their past processes were wrong, but they are finally becoming enlightened enough to move toward the island of the historical process. Thus, we are to take Gaddis on his word that historians are the most right in all academic methodology. Essentially, Gaddis is arguing that social scientists are running away from gaining knowledge or being useful while "hard" scientists are finally beginning to catch up to the noble perch upon which historians have so long been standing.

In making this argument, Gaddis is also discounting the various schools that historical thought has gone through. He either has no sense of historiography (and since we can assume that Gaddis is not an idiot, this is probably not the case) or, and this is much more likely, he chooses to ignore it because it runs directly counter to his implication that the historical process has remained consistent through the years. Otherwise, his argument that historians have stayed defiantly on their island while scientists have been adrift at sea doesn't hold water (if you'll excuse the pun). At the same time, Gaddis does not remain consistent in the assertions he makes through the book. He says from the very beginning that hitorians "pride ourselves on NOT trying to predict the future" (p. 2). He abandons this idea in practice, although not in rhetoric, later in the book when he does seem to argue that history can most efficiently do this very thing. He also notes on page 2 that historians are not influenced by present trends. If Gaddis really believes this then he is delusional, and I've already given him too much credit in my assumption that he's not an idiot. One of the major points that we've repeatedly come back to in the class clearly contradicts Gaddis' assertion. The simple "cheat sheet" of historical schools is a representation of how the time in which historians write influences the way that they see and reflect the past. We've made it a point to note a book's year of publication for just this very reason.

Obviously, I did not care for this book or for Gaddis' arguments in it. He unfairly, uneccessarily, and inaccurately bashes the social sciences like a playground bully. He rightly praises the other sciences (I would argue that they all should be given praise, both social and "hard") but then condescendingly says they are just now catching on to methods historians have already realized and arrogantly says they will now be much better for it. And, he does not acknowledge any weaknesses or limitations of history. In each situation, he spins his version of reality into something positive that everybody else should imitate.


That's it for my rant. As for the final, I agree that it should be structured like the midterm with the essays being take-home and the in-class section resembling the midterm's. The essays can be much better constructed and more thoughtful and insightful that under the time constraints of the final, and a simple word limit would prevent people from rambling and trying to insert every piece of information we've covered this winter.

Erik and Blaine both make good points. I was in Blaine's group, and, like he said we talked about a number of things that seem to define the 'ethos' of the 60s. For me though, I tied everything together with a spirit of rebellion, which I believe was discussed in class. However, I think Blaine may be a little mistaken when he says historians are products of their time. This is certainly true, but I believe there's more to it than that. Historians are also influenced by previous historians and other schools of thought. The anti-progressives for instance wrote from a perspective of their time, but also in response to the progressives.

Oh and as for the exam, make it exactly like the midterm. Writing take home essays, does more than improve the essay quality. The process of research, even over just a day, aids the study process for the entire test.

Goodness where to start. Joel, I do appreciate the fact that you expressed your opinions on here, but I think you're forgetting that you, as a product of your time and experience, are a product of your context. I don't necessarily blame you for objecting to Gaddis, but you're a political science major so it becomes something personal. Gaddis has an excellent point in that we need to transcend our own context to gain a foothold on real objective synthesis of what has happened in the past. I wouldn't say he discredits former schools of historical thought in any sense. If you look back at history and understand that its development is a synthesis of subjective views into an objective past, then each prior school is representative of one of those standpoints. We found in class that we all have problems with certain schools for certain reasons, and I think most of us can agree that the sysnthesis of many of them best create a view of the past that we can agree on. There is no discounting of a view of history. Every view has partial truth, otherwise it would have no substance. But we want, Gaddis wants, the whole truth; if you discount one, you lose the whole.

Also, I think it's very important to consider the fact that we are reading this book with a background of individual context and experience. We interpret subjectively, and those interpretations (like schools of history) contain partial truth; but they are far from the wh0ole truth. If you have a background in a field that Gaddis happens to...put down, so to say, it becomes a personal issue that clouds your judgment of what your reading. Just s in history, we need to transcend that context, those biases in order to gain an objective account of what he is trying to say. This should hold true for ALL social sciences as well.

Historical processes are not at all consistent in their individuality. But they are consistent in that they are important parts of an overall process; the progression of history. But in their individuality, and our interpretations of them, once again, they are not the whole. The goal of the historian is to avoid being influenced by his own biases and predispositions (his own present, if you will). Whether or not we do this we can see by our own problems with past schools of historical thought. He's really not an idiot; he's a human being.

History itself has no weakenesses. How can it? It is what exists and what occurs. We are the ones with the weakness, and Gaddis makes it clear that Historians have been trying to deal with their own subjectivity for a long time. Just because other social scientists are just now beginning to understand that they are too objects in subjectivity (they have biases and predispositions) doesn't mean that history is better or worse or that historians or better or worse.

Hard science, on the other hand, works within a world of set rules and processes. These set rules and processes make their realm purely objective. They avoid all of the influence of the scientist as a protuct of his own context. Whether or not a hard scientist is prejudice doesn't mean that it will affect his experiement. They can make judgments prior to experience and be assured that they will indeed happen. That is the goal of the historian and it always has been; to avoid contaminating the experiment.

Finally, understand that Gaddis too is a human being. He has his own predispositions and biases, but the important part is that he (as a historian) recognizes that those predispositions and biases affect the way we view history as the objective past. Thus, just because you recognize his bias in his book, that doesn't mean the reader's bias has a right to oppose it. That's not our job. Instead, we need to look past the bias, realize the bias itself is not truth, and find the real truth in what he's trying to say and what of our own experience expresses personal knowledge of that truth.

And yes, I have a bias. I liked the book. It's a philosophy book at heart, and I, of course, have a bias. But I'm not going to say that he's right in talking down other social sciences or talking up history or any other kinds od subjective judgement that we might interpret or misinterpret for that matter. That's not my job. It's like missing the cake because you don't like the icing.

This man is crazy! What is up with his underwear fetish? I think he mentions Neapolitan’s underwear three times!

Anyway, John Gaddis may have a weird fascination with underwear, but his book rocks my world! I have been trying, desperately to find my place in academics. I started out majoring in theatre at the College of Charleston. Somehow, I ended up here at Furman.
My days are numbered here. I only have a year left.
Now, that I am a history major, (have been for some time now), I have constantly seconded guessed myself. What is the importance of history, besides just knowing facts? Up chucking random information on a dime is something I’m afraid I will never master. What I am good at is comparing and analyzing facts. After reading this book, I realized that history is a good tale neatly packaged in the brilliance of a particular kind of process. The process of finding a good fit where the past glides into the present is based on Gaddis’s three stage process; “connecting reality, representation, and persuasion”. These stages define the entire job description of a historian, if not that, then a scientist. If indeed I am to make a “fit” in this no man’s land, that has been forged by others before me, then as Gaddis himself has said, [I’m] “at the point of no return” the moment at which an equilibrium that once existed [has] ceased.” In this, I have found a meaning to being a product of my time, directed on this particular general path, I am able to find that illusive area where imagination collides with reality.

Pg. 99

I would also like to include my vote for the final being same structure as the midterm. I (and I think others agree with me) would write a much better out-of class essay than an in-class one. Thanks.

Like Kate, I think Gaddis' book has been my favorite of the term. I think he just has a great way of expressing his views and illustrating examples. That said, I am beginning to be annoyed with how Historians are a product of their time and that they are influenced by their own experiences and by historians before them. I feel like we’ve been talking about those facts all term and to me, that’s an obvious point in reading (history or any other subject) and in life in general. Every opinion is going to vary and every historian will look at events differently. I don’t know if I’m just diminishing significance but to me it’s obvious.

Anyway, I loved Gaddis’ discussion of selectivity, simultaneity, and scale and how “historians have no choice but to engage in them.” I liked the example of the time machine and how if a historian were to pick their area of study and visit it, that experience might actually be counterproductive because of the narrow scope in present experiences.

I also liked what Brandon said about the discussion of history vs. the social sciences. In chapters 4 and 5 I found it interesting that Gaddis would say that social scientists oversimplify history “in order to anticipate the future” because I’ve always heard from history teachers that one of the greatest things about history is that we can help solve current problems by learning from our past mistakes. It seems to me that Gaddis wants to focus on how historians so honorably study and analyze history with no other agenda. But I think that everyone hopes that those historians realize that they are responsible to the masses for using their knowledge for the public good. This was the only point that did bother me a little but I still loved the book.

I am sure this has been discussed before me, but Gaddis' comment on how historians have not heard the actual cannon fire of a battle, nor the voice of Lincoln, struck me as odd because Gaddis mentions very recent events, but fails to speak about the advent of the internet and mass media. Now we can hear Malcom X speak and we can listen to the actual music that filled bars and people's homes during the 1930s. Technology is erasing that safety bubble of detachment from the historian's subject. Gaddis almost seemed to relish the idea that people historians are better than people there at the moment. But as Genovase discovered, people are what make up history and it is people that history is founded upon. People during the moment in time may not be as astute as historians viewing the moment at a later point, but it is through those people that historians get the whole picture.

When I read the book I seemed to get a backlash against those that had criticized Gaddis by saying "You weren't really there, you don't know what it was truly like." And Gaddis I think goes too far in assessing historians'importance and the relative importance of those involved in the moment. With the internet and immense real-live footage available to us, historians might become less detached and become what Gaddis seems to fear most: a biased observer.

The study session will be in our regular classroom from 5:30 to 6:30ish.

Discussion Board as Virtual Study Session

Feel free to post questions, timelines, or anything else here that might be useful as you prep for the final.

In touching back to the 60's and the class discussion that we had, i felt that one topic was left out. That would be the infallibility of the governement. Prior to the Vietnam era the government was questioned, but never truely tested by media, students, activists, and culture as a whole. As a result whenever unpopular choices are made by politicians they are quickly martyred for their beliefs (rather unAmerican..) and seldom have a chance to explain themselves. As a result politicians are starting to resemble the old presidential lineup of the Guilded Age when the executive branch did almost nothing.

As a response to David's post, while I do agree with much of what you said about the testing of the government during the 60s there were moments during the 50s when the government was tested by the media and others. During the red scare and the McCarthy witch hunts, the media played an active role in testing the government's "big brother" mentality when Edward Murrow criticized McCarthy's unjustified questioning of patriotism of many american citizens(highlighted in the movie "Good Night and Good Luck"). I do agree with you on the topic of increased questioning of political decision making during Vietnam but keep in mind that the popular opinion of the war did not decline until many years after we had first sent troops over. In this way it was not the quick martyrdom that you describe in your post but more a steady decline of the popularity of the war that led to the despise of the government that we associate the 1960s with. After the public turned on the government and every aspect of American culture openly objected to the war then the political landscape of direct and quick critizicism of policial decision making which you describe in your post came about. In this transition between steadfast obedience to executive decisions to open rejection of governmental ideals America changed and new ideas about what was the best America emerged, allowing for all of the political, cultural, and ideological change that came out of the 1960s. I like to ramble.

This may not be that deep of a thought but think about it.

It has to do with history being a process. Both a process of obtaining the proper info to make your own interpretations, and the process of history itself, meaning that everything that ever happens is included in some sort of system that will one day spit out a "finished product" that may take the shape of an ounce of knowledge, a book, an article, a teaching position, a cool thought while running through the woods, a discussion among friends, etc.

I never thought (you probably never thought either) that one could compare Business, more specifically Operations Management, to the process of History. But think about this...every process has variation. That is what quality control people do in factories. They measure how many chips are in a random sample of bags to make sure that it is somewhere within a standard deviation of the average amount of chips. Same thing with sodas. Every 20 oz. bottle of coke never has exactly 20 oz. in it. It's always a little high (20.02) or a little low (19.98). This variation is only a problem for management when it becomes so great that the quality of the product suffers.
Dr. Benson was our manager, new ideas, study skills, and an efficient brain were the products, and the process that the manager chose to use was history. There was some variation, some deviation away from the standards, but overall, the process did not let us down.

So there, now you can compare Operations Management to History.

Reading what Erik wrote on the 21st, i totally agree with what he said. When 9/11 happen people we so willing to give up all there rights and liberties so that they could feel safe and feel as if there was nothing to worry about. But then again it was only a phase that the people went through. Because a few years after the fact of the matter was said and done and it was time for war now there are probably more people opposed to the war than for it.
I think that history has a trend to reinvent itself. If you look back at the 60's with everything that was going on, it is very similar to today. There is just a general untrust in the government in things and do and say. A lot of the music know it is not uncommon to maybe here a reference to the war going on or to someone wanting a justified answer to why the war is still continuing. Some of the music has become anti-war just as it was in the 60's. Media coverage has escalated everything that is going on to another level because everyday that the television or radio is turned on the is an issue or problem or question that has to be answered.