Chapter 1:
This chapter discussed the different approaches to history. Some of different fields/schools of history that are mentioned include, cliometrics, the annales school, psycohistory, microhistory, microhistory, marcohistory, and postmodernism. It also discusses the shift in the study of history. Historians went from studying only the lives of the elites, nobility, and military heros to studying the lives of ordinary people. By understanding the numerous fields of history, one can better understand the historiography of a given topic.
1. Do you think one field of history is stronger than another or do you think they are all equal?
2. What do you think sparked the shift from the study of the histories of elites, nobility, and military heros to the study of the common?
Chapter 2:
This chapter discusses the diffrent kinds of sources. There are two kinds of sources, primary and secondary. A Primary source includes things such as newspapers, journals, diaries, records, and documents. While on the other hand, secondary sources are books written about a particular event.
1. Which is more useful a primary source or a secondary source?
Chapter 3:
Within this chapter, the different resources available to students are discusses. Brundage mentions good databases that are useful when trying to find journal articles. He also gives advice on research skills and how to sray organized when researching a topic. It is crucial to have an up to date bibliography when researching.
1. Are there any red flags one should look out for when researching?
Chapter 4:
In this chapter, Brundage is telling his readers to read in between the lines. It is important when reading historical writing that the reader knoews the author. The author could be bias on topic because of his/hers experiences or the could be influenced by their own time period. By understanding more about the author, it allows that reader to better understand their work. Also, it is important to read many different works on a subject because it allows the reader to get varying interpretations of the subject.
1. Why is it important to know an author's background before reading his/hers writing?
2. Why should you read different authors work on the same subject?
Chapter 5:
In this chapter, Brundage goes over how to write a historiographical paper. Through the examples he gives, I was better able to grasp the concept of what a historiography is and how to write a historiographical paper. He also gives advice on note taking and how to pick a solid topic for a historiography paper.
1. Why is it so important to narrow down a subject when choosing a topic for a historiography paper?
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Rosenbaum's Is the Holocaust Unique?: Perspectives on Comparative Genocide
Introduction:
In Rosenbaum's introductions to his book, he states that this book is a way to look a genocides at a comparative level. Historians have been looking at and researching different genocides for years and Rosenbaum's point in writing his book is to relate and compare different genocides and how historians have viewed them.
Chapter 4:
This chapter dealt with why the holocaust is unique. Katz uses the case of the Native Americans and the coming of Columbus, the famine in the Ukraine, the Armenian tragedy to help support his conclusion that the holocaust is unique. He uses facts, such as, most Native Americans died because of disease not murder to support that these events are incomparable to the holocaust. I agree with Katz that the holocaust is unique or do I only agree with him because of how I was raised/taught to view the holocaust?
Chapter 6:
This chapter deals with the Atlantic slave trade and the holocaust at a comparative level. The main difference between the two is that the holocaust was an isolated event (Europe, mostly Germany), while on the other hand, the Atlantic slave trade took place worldwide. Another point made was that in the holocaust the outcome was death and the outcome of the Atlantic slave trade was enslavement. Therefore I ask, is enslavement a genocide?
Chapter 7:
The main argument in this chapter was, was the Armenian Genocide a prototype for future genocides? Both the Armenian genocide and the holocaust were about religion and race. Did the German's use the Armenian genocide as prototype? Some would argue that the Armenians had a choice to change their religion, while on the other hand, the Jewish people had no choice in the matter. This makes me question, if you have a choice is it not a genocide?
Chapter 10:
Kinue Tokudome's "The Holocaust and the Japanese Atrocities," examines Japanese War Crimes and the Holocaust. He focuses his essay around two doctors, Dr. Yausa and Dr. Munch. Both of these doctors although they were half a world apart were doing similar things. Both doctors were doing medical experiments on humans during world war two. Dr. Yausa, a Japanese doctor, felt remorse, while on the other hand, Dr. Munch, a German doctor, did not. The Chinese were being dehumanized by the Japanese in a similar way the Jewish people were being dehumanized by the Germans. Should this two events be compared or should they be look at individually? Do you think that they Jewish and Chinese share something unique?
Chapter 14:
This chapter compares the holocaust and Rwanda. I found this chapter to be the most interesting because I felt as though I knew the most about these two events. Prior to the European colonization of Rwanda, there was no hatred between the Tutsis and the Hutus. The hatred was created by the Europeans. The author tries to compare the similarities between the two events, but the only one I can really see is the both the Jewish and the Tutsi were both the minorities. He also tries to look at the causes of the two events.
Chapter 16:
This chapter deals solely with German historians and how they have interpreted the holocaust. Kansteiner, the author of the essay, examines how they have viewed the holocaust and how their views have changed over time. He concluded that German historians and scholars have split up the holocaust up into four different phases that changed over time: 1. the development of the final solution 2. the debate of Nazism and is it a form of fascism 3. the role of Hitler and the Holocaust 4. the focus on different studies of the final solution
Chapter 17:
This chapter compares the holocaust to other genocides. Through different facts and statistics, the two historians are trying to argue if the holocaust can be or should be compared to other genocides. While one historian believes that the holocaust is incomparable, the other suggests that it is comparable to other genocides. There have been many events that have not been considered genocides, that possibly should be. This makes me wonder what makes a genocide a genocide and are we as people being unsympathetic and the "bad guys" for not naming an event a genocide?
In Rosenbaum's introductions to his book, he states that this book is a way to look a genocides at a comparative level. Historians have been looking at and researching different genocides for years and Rosenbaum's point in writing his book is to relate and compare different genocides and how historians have viewed them.
Chapter 4:
This chapter dealt with why the holocaust is unique. Katz uses the case of the Native Americans and the coming of Columbus, the famine in the Ukraine, the Armenian tragedy to help support his conclusion that the holocaust is unique. He uses facts, such as, most Native Americans died because of disease not murder to support that these events are incomparable to the holocaust. I agree with Katz that the holocaust is unique or do I only agree with him because of how I was raised/taught to view the holocaust?
Chapter 6:
This chapter deals with the Atlantic slave trade and the holocaust at a comparative level. The main difference between the two is that the holocaust was an isolated event (Europe, mostly Germany), while on the other hand, the Atlantic slave trade took place worldwide. Another point made was that in the holocaust the outcome was death and the outcome of the Atlantic slave trade was enslavement. Therefore I ask, is enslavement a genocide?
Chapter 7:
The main argument in this chapter was, was the Armenian Genocide a prototype for future genocides? Both the Armenian genocide and the holocaust were about religion and race. Did the German's use the Armenian genocide as prototype? Some would argue that the Armenians had a choice to change their religion, while on the other hand, the Jewish people had no choice in the matter. This makes me question, if you have a choice is it not a genocide?
Chapter 10:
Kinue Tokudome's "The Holocaust and the Japanese Atrocities," examines Japanese War Crimes and the Holocaust. He focuses his essay around two doctors, Dr. Yausa and Dr. Munch. Both of these doctors although they were half a world apart were doing similar things. Both doctors were doing medical experiments on humans during world war two. Dr. Yausa, a Japanese doctor, felt remorse, while on the other hand, Dr. Munch, a German doctor, did not. The Chinese were being dehumanized by the Japanese in a similar way the Jewish people were being dehumanized by the Germans. Should this two events be compared or should they be look at individually? Do you think that they Jewish and Chinese share something unique?
Chapter 14:
This chapter compares the holocaust and Rwanda. I found this chapter to be the most interesting because I felt as though I knew the most about these two events. Prior to the European colonization of Rwanda, there was no hatred between the Tutsis and the Hutus. The hatred was created by the Europeans. The author tries to compare the similarities between the two events, but the only one I can really see is the both the Jewish and the Tutsi were both the minorities. He also tries to look at the causes of the two events.
Chapter 16:
This chapter deals solely with German historians and how they have interpreted the holocaust. Kansteiner, the author of the essay, examines how they have viewed the holocaust and how their views have changed over time. He concluded that German historians and scholars have split up the holocaust up into four different phases that changed over time: 1. the development of the final solution 2. the debate of Nazism and is it a form of fascism 3. the role of Hitler and the Holocaust 4. the focus on different studies of the final solution
Chapter 17:
This chapter compares the holocaust to other genocides. Through different facts and statistics, the two historians are trying to argue if the holocaust can be or should be compared to other genocides. While one historian believes that the holocaust is incomparable, the other suggests that it is comparable to other genocides. There have been many events that have not been considered genocides, that possibly should be. This makes me wonder what makes a genocide a genocide and are we as people being unsympathetic and the "bad guys" for not naming an event a genocide?
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Rosenbaum Chapter 17
This chapter is almost like a who's who when it comes to genocides. The atrocities that occurred during the Holocaust are not indigenous to just that event. The main point I took out of this chapter and furthermore, the book, was that there are similarities in all of these events. There are also differences in these events. The argument from many saying that the Holocaust is put on a pedestal is worth a listen. However, in everyone of the instances we studied, IN MY OPINION, as insignificant as it is... none of these other genocides went to the extreme to end a complete race of people like the Holocaust. All are morbid, all deserve to treated as real tragedies.
My question:
I was left wondering... are there, and if so how many, atrocities we don't know about that are similar to the Holocaust?
My question:
I was left wondering... are there, and if so how many, atrocities we don't know about that are similar to the Holocaust?
Rosenbaum Chapter 16
Wulf Kansteiner breaks down the history of the Holocaust in Chapter 16. After the end of World War II, it talks about the different phases of the Holocaust. the first group of scholars had difficulty staying separated from Third Reich thought and persuasion, meaning that they stayed away from mentioning the "Final Solution" in their works. The next wave of scholars looked the definition of Nazism, and what the objective was. It was the third wave that looked into the role of Hitler, and in my opinion, that is thew first group to put the event in its proper place. the final group showed a more traditional history chain of the Holocaust.
My question:
What are the reasons to study such an act, other than to remember who caused it, and who they affected during this or any similar event?
My question:
What are the reasons to study such an act, other than to remember who caused it, and who they affected during this or any similar event?
Rosenbaum Chapter 10
The chapter show the difference in how certain events during the second World War were carried out. The story shows that two doctors, one German and one Japanese, were involved with carrying out orders during the war. We learn of Dr. Yuasa of Japan sitting in a Chinese prison. He is given a letter written from a parent. The letter is asking that the doctor get the maximum sentence for the atrocities caused to her. the doctor felt he had repented for all his sins, but after reading the letter, he wanted to trade places with the boy.
The story then shifts to a German Doctor carrying out his assignments at Auschwitz. Renee Firestone had a sister there, and wanted to confront the man responsible for her death. He was someone that was vague in his responses, and robotic in his emotion. He gives the feeling that the job had to be done, and showed no remorse for his actions.
My question:
How can two people with such similar duties, have such a conflicting feeling on their rolls so many years later?
The story then shifts to a German Doctor carrying out his assignments at Auschwitz. Renee Firestone had a sister there, and wanted to confront the man responsible for her death. He was someone that was vague in his responses, and robotic in his emotion. He gives the feeling that the job had to be done, and showed no remorse for his actions.
My question:
How can two people with such similar duties, have such a conflicting feeling on their rolls so many years later?
Rosenbaum Chapter 6
The chapter was focused on the comparison of the Atlantic Slave Trade against The Holocaust. The comparisons that I thought of right away were the Middle Passage and the loading of the train cars in Europe. One of the other similarities was when a slave was branded with a hot iron, showing ownership, similar to the tattooing of the Jews in Europe... both taking identity from a person, and turning them into property. The main differences that I saw was that the slaves were able to develop a culture, have families, and were an important part of society. Though captive, I can almost see that there was definitely saw a purpose to keeping them alive for the South. They were a vital part of the economy. It was the goal of the Germans to eliminate every Jew on the map without regard.
My Question:
Can you be a part of something so long, that if an opportunity arises to be "free", would some say no?
My Question:
Can you be a part of something so long, that if an opportunity arises to be "free", would some say no?
Monday, July 22, 2013
Rosenbaum Intro, 4, 7, 14
Intro: Rosenbaum introduces his book by explaining to the reader that there has been a lot of new research, studies, and comparisons made using the Holocaust. He goes on to say that the word genocide is really synonymous with the Holocaust and most people think of it as the most important "genocide." An interesting approach to a subject that has stayed the same for the most part in the last fifty or so years.
4: Steven Katz bounces around between a few different large scale killings to try and give the reader some type of context, I believe. He talks about something that I have thought as well and that is that the Holocaust isn't unique because of the numbers of killings. The uniqueness comes from the how the killings were thought out and performed.
7: In this chapter Robert Melson writes about something I was waiting to read about. I knew there had to be at least a few genocides long before the holocaust that I had never heard about and that's what I learned after reading this chapter. He writes about an Armenian genocide that was trying to establish the same type of hegemony race that was superior to all the rest. This essay was one of my favorites to read because it just shows that even though when we think genocide we probably all say Holocaust or Rwanda, but there are so many more that I'm sure we've never heard or read about for various reasons. This is why, to me, the Holocaust is not unique in the sense of a genocide. I believe its only uniques lies in the way the killings were done, Auschwitz/Dachau, etc.
14: In the last chapter of this weeks reading we get to read more about the comparisons between the Holocaust and Rwanda. If there were a list as to the worst genocides in history I would put these two number one and two. The problem between comparing these two genocides lies in the outcome and not so much what led to each event. This seems to be the problem in most comparisons between the Holocaust and other mass killings, its really difficult to compare events like these because of the huge differences between time, reasons, religious and cultural implications, all of that. To me, the only way to compare things like these genocides is only by the numbers as compared to the total population. Other than that it is hard to draw parallels besides maybe race.
4: Steven Katz bounces around between a few different large scale killings to try and give the reader some type of context, I believe. He talks about something that I have thought as well and that is that the Holocaust isn't unique because of the numbers of killings. The uniqueness comes from the how the killings were thought out and performed.
7: In this chapter Robert Melson writes about something I was waiting to read about. I knew there had to be at least a few genocides long before the holocaust that I had never heard about and that's what I learned after reading this chapter. He writes about an Armenian genocide that was trying to establish the same type of hegemony race that was superior to all the rest. This essay was one of my favorites to read because it just shows that even though when we think genocide we probably all say Holocaust or Rwanda, but there are so many more that I'm sure we've never heard or read about for various reasons. This is why, to me, the Holocaust is not unique in the sense of a genocide. I believe its only uniques lies in the way the killings were done, Auschwitz/Dachau, etc.
14: In the last chapter of this weeks reading we get to read more about the comparisons between the Holocaust and Rwanda. If there were a list as to the worst genocides in history I would put these two number one and two. The problem between comparing these two genocides lies in the outcome and not so much what led to each event. This seems to be the problem in most comparisons between the Holocaust and other mass killings, its really difficult to compare events like these because of the huge differences between time, reasons, religious and cultural implications, all of that. To me, the only way to compare things like these genocides is only by the numbers as compared to the total population. Other than that it is hard to draw parallels besides maybe race.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)