Support of the Lou Zhu, Lou Zhu worked hard
Signature---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
Nothing is impossible for a willing heart.
ugg classic cardy

u6HQSJ Great work, webmaster, nice design!

A0F4id

9qtNk0

Final thoughts...

The History Engine provided insight into the fact that history is a largely interpretive process. Looking through primary and secondary sources and then framing an analysis around them gives historians a degree of authority I had not before realized. What is also difficult about this process is inevitable influence of the interpretations of others; reading their analysis can profoundly influence your own understanding of various texts.

It was interesting to examine snapshot events that go largely undiscussed in the broad sense of history. Textbooks still have their value by providing a framework into which we can assimilate our interpretations, but looking at specific instances in history which appear to have only a small realm of influence can further our understanding of an event by examining its local impact as opposed to only its national significance. The opportunities provided by the History Engine gave me a nuanced understanding of historical importance.

Backfill for 10/25

The comparison of Natchez, Mississippi and New Albany, Indiana elucidates the sectional and geographical differences in the young United States. The distribution of population emphasizes different approaches to a primarily agricultural economy; though both towns relied on farming, there is a great contrast in the dispersal of people over the land. Similarly, the absence of a railroad route through either town had a profound impact on the degree of industrialization. This further highlights the fact that the railroad drastically altered the economies of the geographic regions it touched. Railroads caused a shift in focus in the towns through which it ran, and the absence of this industrialization in Natchez and New ALbany sheds light on the fact that agrarianism was perpetuated in the absence of this mode of transportation.

backfill

T believe it is interesting at the end of the term look back on readings from the middle or beginning of the term. This allows us to understand the growing process of learning throughout the term. in the instance of week 4 when we studied the Sumner caning. The focus during this session was that the South was on the brink of secession and the Civil War was right around the corner. Now after the term is over we know that there was a long period of time of about 4 or 5 years that passed before any shots were fired. These larger than life events tend to overshadow the less glamorous events in history. They also tend to be bunched up even skipping years with little or no "significance."

backfill

with the assigned reading on the statue of liberty combined with my opt-ed research on the statue i was able to learn the intended meaning o the statue. The statue was meant to symbolize Franco-American friendships that were created during the Revolutionary War. I find it interesting and slightly ironic that the meaning of the Statue has grown to become an international symbol of American freedom and democracy. The Statue also grew to be a sign of hope and identification of America for immigrants entering our country. The true agenda by France in the generous gift to America was in essence a cheap way for the newly established 3rd republic in France to strengthen diplomatic ties.

Edited by author 12-12-2007 06:09 AM
Final thoughts

my final thoughts on the course was that it could be exhausting at times. But the experiences that i gained with the new study techniques helped me to think in ways i i hadn't thought of before. The history engine project has made me think differently about my major which i didn't think was possible at this point in my education. I am very pleased with the history engine project and i think it should be incorporated in future years. As much fun as the southern history database was i think it might be too much of a load to have two major projects and a regular curriculum along with it. But i have a heavy schedule so it just might be me complaining for no reason. Overall one of the top 3 classes i have taken at Furman.

Final thoughts- just a few comments on the limitations of the History Engine as it was employed in the case of our final exam essay question.

One of our exam essay questions involved using a series of History Engine episodes from select dates as a core body of evidence for assessing the entire history of America in the 19th century. While reading the dozens of episodes for the selected months and years, I was struck by how almost every episode seemed to relate to either slavery, the threat of secession, or the Civil War. I think I would be underestimating if I said that 50% of the episodes could easily be categorized in one of those three topics. This seems astonishing: we were given almost unlimited freedom in the types of primary sources that could be used, but still, the episodes ended up being almost entirely about just a few select topics.

This raises the issue of a self-selection bias in the project: did students write their episodes about slavery, secession, and the Civil War because those are generally the only things that happened in the 19th century, or did students write their episodes about those topics because they had been taught that those were what happened in the 19th century? Suppose a student searches through the Furman archives for an "interesting" primary source to write an episode on. Which will seem more "interesting" and "relevant" to the student, an episode about topics he has been taught are important (slavery, secession, Civil War), or an episode about something unrelated and obscure?

An experiment could probably be done to try and avoid this bias: take a group of students and assign a huge body of primary resources from an obscure time period limited to a small geographic region. Providing virtually no historical context or secondary instruction, have them write episodes based on the primary sources, giving complete freedom in the area of episode selection. Ultimately, you could compare what types of episodes were written by students with what historians have traditionally done for that particular time period and geographic area. Though probably impossible to implement in an actual course, the results could be interesting.

Backfill post- Dun and Bradstreet company history as an episode

Having written so many episodes, it's now a bit easier to analyze this...

The writing style of the company history fits well with the way an episode might be written. It is very concise, direct, and informative-- it gives the who's and the what's and the why's of company growth and innovation. However, while the writing style works as an episode, the subject matter does not. Rather than focus on one "episode", the company history describes a series of events in chronological order. In effect, it is a "history" composed of a series of episodes (the company merger, the company's creation, rivalry between the Bradstreet Company and the Mercantile Agency) that might be found in something like the Summers book. Also lacking is an event described from the perspective of a primary source.

Of course, if the Dun and Bradstreet company history were submitted to the History Engine, questions would also be raised about the account's objectivity. The history is a series of endless praise for the founders and operators of the company, the company itself, and its business practices. Particularly interesting is the company's spinning of recent history: "D&B has undergone a period of restructuring in recent years, designed to make D&B a smaller, more tightly focused company. A.C. Nielsen, Cognizant, Reuben H. Donnelley and Moody's Corporation were all spun off to allow each company to pursue focused strategies for its specific business." This sounds more like a corporate spin-doctor's way of saying "we overexpanded, hit some hard times, and had to cut back on employees and operations", than an accurate description of what has happened to the company.

I think it's safe to say that corporate histories should be kept out of the History Engine.

Edited by author 12-11-2007 06:18 PM
Backfill post- Lincoln's Second Inaugural, Gettysburg Address, Chickamauga monument.

It was surprising to see from these documents how willingly Lincoln, and the rest of the Union along with him, adopted slavery as the reason for fighting the Civil War. You always hear people who say "the war wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights" or "the war wasn't about slavery, it was about saving the Union." Even Lincoln is often quoted as saying something to the effect of "if I could save the Union by saving no slaves, I would do it." However, these documents (or in the case of the Chickamauga monument, the plaque) are removed from the earlier part of the war and openly embrace freeing the slaves as a major reason to justify the fighting.

Lincoln's Second Inaugural clearly states: "All knew that this interest [slavery] was somehow the cause of the war."

The Gettysburg Address opens with the notion that "all men are created equal" and closes by talking about "a new birth of freedom."

The Chickamauga monument calls the Civil War "the conflict which made all men free."

I had always read that freeing the slaves was not a popular war goal in the early days of the war, and that some Union soldiers even deserted when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation because freeing the slaves was not what they were fighting for. However, it seems as if by the end of the war, fighting to free the slaves had become an even more powerful justification for fighting than "saving the Union." While it is obvious that Lincoln himself agreed with this, I wonder how much of the rest of the public went along with Lincoln, and how long it took them to do so. Clearly, by the time the Chickamauga monument was constructed, public opinion rested with Lincoln's interpretation.

Backfill-My final thoughts on this course

This was my last for my history major, other than my seminar. Thus I find it quite fitting that it was the most challenging. Coming into this class I didn't know what to expect,so when I began to be bombarded with SHDB, History Engine, and other topics, I became very overwhelmed. But I believe that this sense of uneasiness helped me to over become and better student and understand the concepts that the course was desinged to teach. This course was very different becasue the facts seemed to be a secondary concern, while patterns, ideas, and theories took a front seat. This was new to me becasue I was used to learning being taught the events and the narrataive that connected them, this class separated this fixed structure allowing the students to questions links, causation, and the overall narrative of "history." While this was challening to overcome at first, this new framework has helped me better understand the implications of history, while reinforcing some popular narratives and debunking others. This class helped me gain new insights and an appreciation for the "episodes" of history that often get overlooked in favor of narrative flair. It seems that a real historian should look at the facts objectively and then try to find these connections, not have preconcieved notions about how they fit together. The episodic nature of this course has helped me to think this way.