What have you learned today?
Talk History: On learning from and writing history
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1wildbill
In a lot of the threads we have discussed how we read history and what books we read, I thought it might be good to focus on what we are learning. As readers and students of history our goal is to learn but that is not something we have focused on. I have been doing a lot of reading on the Civil War and the ante-bellum period and feel like I am getting a handle on why the Civil War is called the second American Revolution.
In Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, which I read in college long ago, the author looked on the Civil War as a political revolution in America that changed the country from a traditional society to an industrialized society. I always thought this was an interesting analysis and the more I read about the social history of what happened the more I see there is a lot of truth in what he said. The emphasis in Civil War history is on the military history. The military history is the story of the violent political change that made the revolution
Prior to the Civil War the South was a traditional agricultural society that exercised a great deal of control of the country. After the war the country was controlled by the north and the west and became a great industrial power that by the 1880's rivaled Britain as the largest industrial economy in the world. The violence of the Civil War was like a political earthquake. There was a great movement of social and cultural tectonic plates that led to great changes in the country in a short amount of time. These changes would not have occurred without the violence of the war which destroyed Southern slave society and Southern dominance in the country. I am sure this has been said in many places by real scholars but it is an idea that is just getting into my skull. I have a lot more reading about the period after the war to test my idea but it is supported by the general facts that I know now.
I am sure that all of us from one book or a series of books are having the same type of personal learning experiences and it would benefit us all to share them.
In Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, which I read in college long ago, the author looked on the Civil War as a political revolution in America that changed the country from a traditional society to an industrialized society. I always thought this was an interesting analysis and the more I read about the social history of what happened the more I see there is a lot of truth in what he said. The emphasis in Civil War history is on the military history. The military history is the story of the violent political change that made the revolution
Prior to the Civil War the South was a traditional agricultural society that exercised a great deal of control of the country. After the war the country was controlled by the north and the west and became a great industrial power that by the 1880's rivaled Britain as the largest industrial economy in the world. The violence of the Civil War was like a political earthquake. There was a great movement of social and cultural tectonic plates that led to great changes in the country in a short amount of time. These changes would not have occurred without the violence of the war which destroyed Southern slave society and Southern dominance in the country. I am sure this has been said in many places by real scholars but it is an idea that is just getting into my skull. I have a lot more reading about the period after the war to test my idea but it is supported by the general facts that I know now.
I am sure that all of us from one book or a series of books are having the same type of personal learning experiences and it would benefit us all to share them.
2Urquhart
message1
' As readers and students of history our goal is to learn but that is not something we have focused on.'
Bill you really struck a nerve with that one. Your thread is an excellent one for me.
Being a member of this group I am concious and very guilty over how very much reading and learning everyone is continually doing and my constant need to read, study more, and in general ...catch up with you all.
At the moment, I am moving ahead on two fronts:
1)On one front, I am going through an Ancient Greek literature phase of having done the Odyssey for a second time, the Iliad and currently half way through the Aeneid.
One of the things that is standing out for me in the Aeneid, as in the Iliad, is the freedom with men are so often crying. Also, in the Aeneid, death and dying seem to be both frequent and very graphic.
2) I am also embarking on a long overdue effort to understand American Indian history since the Mayflower landing. It's going to take me a while before I comment on this, but I have everything to learn.
3JFCooper
> 2
My friend, this is not a race. No catching up is necessary. Read at your own pace, understand to the best of your own ability. Share your insights. :-)
Anthropologists like Lowell Bean will be a big help. with point #2. A lot of data that Historians use to interpret the history of contact between native peoples and European invaders (to use Francis Jennings's term) is anthropological in nature.
More fun reading will include books like The Unredeemed Captive by John Putnam Demos.
***
Almost forgot to mention...
I had a great semester this spring. The final exam was the culmination of some good work on my part and it hit the most capable class I have ever had. The result (and the reason the spring semester was great) was that one of the essay questions elicited responses that taught me something new about how people see each other and how they read history.
Basically, the question centered on the ancillary reading for the course. The book is Stuart Sprague's edition of His Promised Land: The Autobiography of John P. Parker, Former Slave and Conductor on the Underground Railroad. I wanted to know if they thought Parker was a man ahead of his time or if typified his era. They were to pull 3 examples of his "usualness" and 3 examples of his "unusualness" to make their decision.
I got some really cool answers. They were so cool that I'm keeping copies for later reflection. My students' interpretations of typical and unusual allowed me to see Parker in new ways. Just really really cool. :-)
Daniel
My friend, this is not a race. No catching up is necessary. Read at your own pace, understand to the best of your own ability. Share your insights. :-)
Anthropologists like Lowell Bean will be a big help. with point #2. A lot of data that Historians use to interpret the history of contact between native peoples and European invaders (to use Francis Jennings's term) is anthropological in nature.
More fun reading will include books like The Unredeemed Captive by John Putnam Demos.
***
Almost forgot to mention...
I had a great semester this spring. The final exam was the culmination of some good work on my part and it hit the most capable class I have ever had. The result (and the reason the spring semester was great) was that one of the essay questions elicited responses that taught me something new about how people see each other and how they read history.
Basically, the question centered on the ancillary reading for the course. The book is Stuart Sprague's edition of His Promised Land: The Autobiography of John P. Parker, Former Slave and Conductor on the Underground Railroad. I wanted to know if they thought Parker was a man ahead of his time or if typified his era. They were to pull 3 examples of his "usualness" and 3 examples of his "unusualness" to make their decision.
I got some really cool answers. They were so cool that I'm keeping copies for later reflection. My students' interpretations of typical and unusual allowed me to see Parker in new ways. Just really really cool. :-)
Daniel
4Wattsian
I just finished reading Ben Franklin's autobiography for the fourth or fifth time in this lifetime. That includes a couple of aborted attempts, a college required read, a good reading a few years ago, and a GREAT reading just finished.
Immediately after I finished the autobiography, I dived into The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin. My latest reading and Wood's sympathetic look at this multifaceted, flawed, and fantastic fellow made me realize how close he was to a classical hero of oratory and another world republic, perhaps the first ever, of Rome: Cicero.
I wrote a bit about the similarities on my blog: http://thoughtsontherange.blogspot.com/2009/05/franklin-got-raw-deal.html.
As I get older—I'm only 34—I find greater sympathy and compassion for those heroes who are older and imperfect. Perhaps because I am older and imperfect.
This is just my small example of how historical reading broadens our understanding not just of events but of ways to live life, think about life, and feel life.
Wattsian
EDIT: To include handle at end.
Immediately after I finished the autobiography, I dived into The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin. My latest reading and Wood's sympathetic look at this multifaceted, flawed, and fantastic fellow made me realize how close he was to a classical hero of oratory and another world republic, perhaps the first ever, of Rome: Cicero.
I wrote a bit about the similarities on my blog: http://thoughtsontherange.blogspot.com/2009/05/franklin-got-raw-deal.html.
As I get older—I'm only 34—I find greater sympathy and compassion for those heroes who are older and imperfect. Perhaps because I am older and imperfect.
This is just my small example of how historical reading broadens our understanding not just of events but of ways to live life, think about life, and feel life.
Wattsian
EDIT: To include handle at end.
5LamSon
"As I get older—I'm only 34—I find greater sympathy and compassion for those heroes who are older and imperfect. Perhaps because I am older and imperfect."
>4 Wattsian: Well said. With an additional 15 years, or so, I have even more sympathy for imperfect heroes. However, I do think it is good for kids to have 'perfect' heroes from history. It's ok to think of Washington and Lincoln a being perfect when you're 10 or 12, then, as you age and begin to see your own imperfection, you will be ready to find out that even the great ones had their shortcomings.
>4 Wattsian: Well said. With an additional 15 years, or so, I have even more sympathy for imperfect heroes. However, I do think it is good for kids to have 'perfect' heroes from history. It's ok to think of Washington and Lincoln a being perfect when you're 10 or 12, then, as you age and begin to see your own imperfection, you will be ready to find out that even the great ones had their shortcomings.
6Wattsian
I couldn't agree more. I think heroic idealism is crucial to young men and women striving to be better, stronger, more capable, and more compassionate people, and reach for the stars.
7JFCooper
>5 LamSon: and 6
That's what Heroditus and Thyucidides were going for! They wanted to exemplify proper Greek heroism and instill it in succeeding generations.
More multifacted understanding of history (the kind we practice) only becomes useful in an open society. It takes mental development that only begins to occur in the mid teens (interpretation); starts to mature about 10 years later (judgment); and comes to fruition as we gain broader life perspective.
Daniel
That's what Heroditus and Thyucidides were going for! They wanted to exemplify proper Greek heroism and instill it in succeeding generations.
More multifacted understanding of history (the kind we practice) only becomes useful in an open society. It takes mental development that only begins to occur in the mid teens (interpretation); starts to mature about 10 years later (judgment); and comes to fruition as we gain broader life perspective.
Daniel
