Brundage

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

Chapter 17 Uniqueness as Denial: The Politics as Genocide Scholarship

This chapter deals with the intentional denial of the Jewish Holocaust and the background of those that deny it. While denial of the Holocaust isn't widespread it is a serious enough issue for many countries to ban it. In Germany, the German law states that "denial of the Holocaust" is punishable by up to five years in jail. denial of the holocaust is a result of antisemitism, but it goes further than this.

Chapter 16 The Rise and Fall of Metaphor: German Historians and the Uniqueness of the Holocaust

This chapter discusses the historiography of the Holocaust, it explains how it consists of 4 different periods in its study and writing. It's not until the 1980's that Holocaust studies really expanded into the field of economic studies it is today. The author of this article lists the four sections as post-war silence, historical sobriety,  flight into theory, and flight into exceptionality.

Chapter 10 The Holocaust and the Japanese Atrocities

This chapter introduces the similarities and differences of the Holocaust and the Japanese atrocities by retelling the stories of two doctors who had failed to uphold their Hippocratic oaths. In a way these two men had more in common than one would normally think. They had different reactions to the realization of what they had done. The chapter also explains the abundance of sources on the Holocaust and the comparative lack of sources on the Japanese atrocities. While the German war crimes were known internationally, the Japanese were never prosecuted in the same way and this prevented Japanese society from publicly recognizing what they had done. Iris Chang, the author of the Rape of Nanking discusses how many Japanese were quick to find "errors" with her work and sought to discredit her and her categorization of what happened in China as a genocide.

Chapter 17

In this chapter we see a comparison between other genocide and the holocaust. In doing so I began to notice how touchy this essay actually was. On one side you have Katz whom is making it seem that the holocaust is incomparable to any other event in the world. On the other side you have Stannard whom makes valid points based on statistics and facts to argue that it is a comparable event. I found this very very interesting in the out look of these historians. It makes one wonder where to draw the line between offending other people.

Chapter 16

In this chapter we see a historical out look on the holocaust in a few different phases. the first being a look at the "final solution" which was strictly for the court system. The second was a look at the nazis as a whole and their thoughts it questioned what they actually were. The third focused mainly on Hitler and his goals . The last group focused again on the "Final solution" but from an outside point of view. This shows that the actual history has evolved and certain situations and points of view have come forward on moral topics and politics.

Rosenbaum Chapter 17

Antisemitism still exists today in Germany and in other parts of the world.  In the past and still today people try to suggest the number of deaths related to the Holocaust have been greatly exaggerated and Hitler was not personally responsible for Holocaust.  However, the U.S. government refused to acknowledge the mass slaughter of the Native American population as a genocide.  The U.S. Senate once threatened to cut off funding to the Smithsonian for even suggesting it was a genocide.  The American Press denied it also.  Similarly, It is illegal to talk about the genocide of Armenians in Turkey today.  Such denial is not limited to these genocides alone.  To think such hateful sentiment is state sponsored is sickening.

What atrocities have been intentionally concealed by governments?

Why were they concealed and why did people tolerate these lies?

Rosenbaum Chapter 16

German historiography and German historians views about the Holocaust have evolved since 1945.  In the aftermath of WWII and the Holocaust, German historians needed to take a step back to obtain an objective and "honest" viewpoint of what happened, how it happened, and why did it happen?  From the end of WWII to 1957 very little was produced by German historians in regards to the "Final solution."  However, the next decade German historians produced several works devoted to and addressing the Holocaust.  The 1970's and 1980's saw very little in regards to the Holocaust by German historians.  Recently,  the study of Holocaust has once again become a hot topic of study.

What was behind these trends of study?

Are there political and ideological reasons behind the study of the Holocaust?

Chapter 10

In this essay we see a comparison of two doctors during the rape of nanking and the holocaust the doctors being Dr. Yuassa of Japan and Dr. Munch of Germany. In both cases these doctors performed experiments against the people whom their armies were fighting against, China and the Jews. Now the difference between the two doctors was that Munch had no emotion or sorrow for the part that he had taken at the death camp the he conducted his work at. Yuassa on the other hand felt great sorrow and remorse for his actions that he took against the people he "worked" on.  In this we see a different type of emotion between two events and people whom played a major role in them.

Rosenbaum Chapter 10

During WWII the Japanese used Chinese people as human guinea pigs to test biological weapons. These tests were performed by scientist such as Dr. Yuasa who served under General Shiro Ishii.  Similarly, the Nazis performed such tests on Jews in concentration camps.  These tests were performed by people like Dr. Munch who was stationed at Auschwitz.  The Rape of Nanking by the Japanese Army killed between 260,000 to over 300,000 Chinese according to Iris Chang.  The Holocaust killed over 6 million people.  Both atrocities were both racial, however, the Holocaust is unique because of the amount of casualties.

Did the Japanese want to annihilate the Chinese?

Were the tests performed by the Japanese and Nazis similar in purpose?

Rosenbaum Chapter 6

Chapter 6 gives a comparative analysis between the Atlantic Slave Trade and the Holocaust.  Some historians argue that because of the mass degradation, dispersion, and death there are parallels between them.  Therefore, Historians compare the victimization of the two peoples.  Drescher refers to the Atlantic Slave system.  This system was based on established slave systems in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean.  Race was a major factor in the Atlantic Slave Trade and the Holocaust.  Both catastrophes were similar as far as human suffering, however, vastly different.

In what ways were they similar?


What made them so different?

Chapter 6

In this chapter Drecher's essay talks about the Atlantic slave trade in comparison to the Holocaust itself. In doing so speaking about these events I noticed that the difference between the two events were the reasoning behind them and the specific time frames that each event took. When looking at the holocaust  I noticed that in comparison to the slave trade the holocaust was quick and main goal was to eliminate the jewish population. on the other hand when looking at the Atlantic slave trade, this event was taken over a long period of time and focussed on using the slaves to work not kill them, difference being the value of life and death. In this we then begin to think of what constitutes a actual "genocide".

Rosenbaum Chapters

6: Chapter six has to do with a comparative look at the Holocaust and the Slave Trade, both huge atrocities. The biggest difference between the two events were that the Slave Trade lasted for years and years and was located all over the world. On the contrary, the Holocaust was held to a few years and only one place (when I say few years I don't do so insensitively). And, like Brooke mentioned, the desired outcome was completely different. During the Holocaust the hope was to kill as many Jews as possible. Whereas the Slave Trade was solely based upon keeping as many of these people alive as possible, a very interesting idea.

10: "The Holocaust and Japanese Atrocities" essay talks about two doctors during WWII and what they did. Both doctors had their hands in killings during the war and both had very different reactions to the crimes they committed. Dr. Munch felt no remorse to what he did during the Holocaust whereas Dr. Yuasa showed a lot of remorse and regret.

16: The next essay, "The Rise and Fall of Metaphor: German Historians and the Uniqueness of the Holocaust," gives us a historiography. There were many different groups that studied the Holocaust and they all did so for different reasons. The first group conducted research on the Holocaust very soon after it had ended and did so for the legal system and the courts. Next group of scholars looked closely at Nazi's themselves and their beliefs. Third group of scholars looked more into Hitler and the final group began to write more narrative history. To me, this seems like a good way to bring the holocaust to a wider audience and helps the subject to be introduced to a younger group of kids through stories.

17: The final essay we had to read has to with the victims themselves. Stannard argues that many scholars have actually de-victimized the other groups that were involved in the Holocaust by making it seem like it was only the Jewish people being killed. Jews make up the largest group of those to die and if you asked most kids or adults who suffered most from the Holocaust they will all say the Jews but there were so many other groups of people that were affected. 

Is the Holocaust Unique? Chapter 17

In chapter 17, David Stannard explains genocide in terms of politics and how scholars study and view different genocides. Stannard points out that several politicians in the U.S. boycotted the Smithsonian museum after they wanted to do an exhibition on the removal of the Native Americans. What stuck out for me was Christopher Hitchens who advocated for the removal and killing of the Native Americans and used social Darwinism to explain the African slave trade. Stannard also talks about Holocaust scholars and how many of them interpret the Holocaust and how they somewhat categorized it. He mentions Deborah Lipstadt and her views on Holocaust deniers. Her strong views on Holocaust deniers Stannard writes is her way and her way only. He writes about the debates between historians about genocides of the Armenians, Native Americans, and Gypsies and how Holocaust scholars view these genocides in comparison with the Jewish Holocaust. Stannard points out the number of Jews who died of disease during the Holocaust and he also points out the death of the Native people who also died from diseases. He says that many scholars points out that these disease deaths should not be called "genocidal". These scholars argue about if Jews and Native Americans were not exposed to these horrible conditions, they would not have died. At the end, Stannard makes the point that the Holocaust was unique as was the Armenian, Bosnian, and Cambodian genocide. Although, he did say that his main argument on why the Holocaust was unique was that the Nazis set out to destroy every Jew that they could find. Genocides are horrible and sometimes to compare them might seem vulgar and not right. But we have to look at past events and see the similarities and differences and ultimately pray that genocides come to an end.

Do Holocaust scholars have the right to dismiss other genocides?

Should historians even compare genocides to each other?

Rosenbaum Chapter 17

In David E. Stannard's essay entitled, "Uniqueness of Denial: The Politics of Genocide Scholarship," Stannard argues that scholars such as Steven Katz ad Yehuda Bauer, have placed a uniqueness on the Holocaust, particularly that of Jewish uniqueness, and in effect have de-victimized other groups involved in genocide. Stannard uses four examples in which scholars try to base the uniqueness argument: death statistics, cause of death, dehumanization, and intent. Scholars have argued that each of these examples is unique to the Jewish Holocaust when in fact, as Stannard points out, each one of the examples or proof of uniqueness was quite similar to other genocides, particularly the removal of Native Americans. With this proof at hand, Stannard asserts that scholars such as Katz and Bauer, in their denial of other genocides, are actually racist.

Side Note: I particularly liked this essay because you could really see the authors emotions in this piece of work. You could tell that when he wrote this he was quite pissed about how scholars have been de-vitimizing other groups that have undergone similar circumstances.

Rosenbaum Chapter 16

In Wulf Kansteiner's essay, "The Rise and Fall of Metaphor: German Historians and the Uniqueness of the Holocaust," Kasteiner presents the reader with a historiography of German scholarship about the Holocaust. Beginning with the end of WWII, there are four phases of German Holocaust scholarship. The first group of scholars in the 1950's -1960's did their research not for public consumption, but for the courts information on the "development of the Final Solution." (p. 276) The second group in the 1970's, looked at the theories of Nazism and heavily debated Nazism as a type of facism. The third group, which arrived in the later 1980's, began to look deeper into the role that Hitler played, Nazi policies, and the moral responsibility of the Final Solution. The final group which appeared in the later 1980's as well and continued through the 1990's, typically wrote in the narrative form about "regional studies of the origins of the Final Solution." (p. 284)

Rosenbaum Chapter 10

In Kinue Tokudome's essay entitled, "The Holocaust and Japanese Atrocities," Tokudome presents the reader with the reactions of two doctors that both were involved in human experimentation during World War II. Dr. Yuasa, a Japanese doctor, was working for the Japanese Imperial Army in China and was involved in the deaths of humans during the Rape of Nanking. As he watches a documentary about a German doctor, Dr. Munch, who had been accused of the same crimes as he, there is a great contrast in the emotion that each felt for what they had done. Dr. Munch showed absolutely no remorse when confronted about his actions in Auschwitz, while Dr Yuasa had shown deep remorse for his. This essays shows not only the individual experience and emotions behind two extremely horrific events, but it also shows the mentality of the individuals involved in them.

Rosenbaum Chapter 6

In Seymour Drescher's essay entitled, "The Atlantic Slave Trade and the Holocaust: A Comparative Analysis," Drescher compares and contrasts two of the largest events in history, Atlantic slave trade and the Holocaust to show that each event was unique. One example of how the two events differed was the motives and time frame behind each of the events. The Atlantic slave trade was "long-term and incremental,"(p.105), involved many nations, and was based on economic and political motives in which the slaves were only valuable if alive. The Holocaust occurred over a short period of years, only occurred on one continent, and though the motives were also politically based, Jews were only valuable if dead.
Drescher also touches on the transportation of both groups, again with the transporting of slaves being over a longer period of time than the transport of the Jews, however both inhumane. Once transport was complete, Drescher believes that the slaves were in a much better situation than that of the Jews. Both groups would be forced into labor.
However, unlike the Holocaust, the Atlantic slave trade was not racially motivated. According to Drescher, the only people that were not allowed to be enslaved were of European descent. The Holocaust, was racially based and including the capture, forced labor, and death of those of Jewish descent.

Chapter 6 The Atlantic Slave Trade and the Holocaust

Chapter 6, titled, "The Atlantic Slave Trade and the Holocaust: A Comparative Analysis" by Seymour Drescher explores the similarities and differences between the slave trade going on from the 1500's through 1800's and the Holocaust in Europe. His first difference which he points out is the difference in timeframe of these two periods. Next he looks at the economic value that accompanied both of the systems of slavery and the Holocaust and the economic gain that was present from the enslavement of Africans.While the economic incentive was the principle draw for peoples involvement in the slave trade, there was no financial gain from the killing of Jews in the Holocaust. The Holocaust was confined to 4 years. Most obviously, the point of transportation came down to value, the Jews being transported were worthless to the Germans, so the transportation of these people was not given priority; with the slaves however, the safe transport was essential.

Is the Holocaust Unique? Chapter 16

Wulf Kansteiner in chapter 16 explains German historians studies of the Holocaust since the end of the war. Kansteiner writes about the four phases of Holocaust studies in Germany and the first phase made little or no mention of the "Final Solution". He also mentions the problems that many historians had, both young and old, trying to detach themselves from the Third Reich. What is interesting to read about is the German historians doing research to redeem themselves and essentially their country in their research. After much silence in the 1950's and early 1960's, studies took shape after the Eichmann and  Auschwitz trials of the 60's. German historians wanted to study the Holocaust give their country their integrity back. It was really the young students who broke away from the Nazi past. It was after the student movement when historians began to reconsider the Third Reich and their place in history. For me and it is mention in the chapter, to really understand the Holocaust, you have to look at the death squads, the euthanasia program to the everyday lives of the German people. Kansteiner mentions the historian debate that gripped the historical sphere back in the 1980's. Since then and historians have been granted access to archives, historians can dive deeper into Holocaust studies and come to grip with the past.

Is it good for history and historians to have a "younger" more modern way to look at the past or take the old, conventional way?

Can historians have an impact with their studies and how they can help a nation recover or understand the past wrongs they committed?  

Is the Holocaust Unique chapter 10

Kinue Tokudome in chapter 10 looks at Japanese atrocities during World War Two and the Holocaust. Tokudome starts off with Iris Chang's book The Rape of Nanking and the controversy that followed. Many historians disagreed with Chang's opinion that the episode in Nanking was a genocide and many scholars argued that the Japanese did not want to exterminate the Chinese. I found it interesting when Iris Chang gave speeches about Nanking at the Holocaust Museum, she mentions that not one Jewish and non-Jewish people. I wonder if Jewish people feel a certain connection with the Chinese? It should be noted that after the death of Emperor Hirohito, Japanese historians started to write about Japanese war crimes. It should be also be noted that before Hirohito's death, not much was written in both English and Japanese about war crimes committed by the Japanese. The chapter includes a section on Unit 731, Japanese biological warfare department. At the end, Tokudome asks if historians should compare the Japanese war crimes and the Holocaust. But he does mention Unit 731 experimented on twelve time the amount tested by Nazi doctors. I also read somewhere else that the former head of Unit 731 was given asylum in the U.S. after the war.

Should Unit 731 and Nazi experiments be compared?

The Japanese have long debated the Rape of Nanking. Should they finally admit their fault and should it be compared to Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide?

Is the Holocaust Unique Chapter 6

Seymour Drescher in chapter 6 writes about the European slave trade and the Holocaust. He writes that many scholars write about the slave trade and the Holocaust together because of the total destruction and denigration that those two races went through. Seymour points out some differences between the two. In studying American slavery, scholars look at centuries of enslaved people while Holocaust scholars look at years. Seymour mentions what ties the two together is the initial enslavement of the Africans and the Jews. Seymour also writes about the transit that the enslaved Africans and Jews took on their way to their fate and how similar each were. I think one of the main differences between the two and what Seymour points out in the chapter is really how and when they died. Most of the slaves that perished died within weeks of being enslaved. For the Jews, they were killed right on the spot. I found the section on racism interesting because at first, race played a little role in the enslavement of Africans while as we know race played a huge role in Nazi extermination. For me, slavery and the Holocaust should be considered separately. Although both devasting and sad, they both have unique qualities that should be considered their own.

Although the Nazis used Jews for forced labor, should we consider force labor in the same way as African Slavery?

Should slavery be considered a genocide when the mindset at the time was not exterminate the African race, but use them for profit?

Rosenbaum Chapter 14

Rosenbaum compares the Rwandan Genocide to the Holocaust.  The genocide was aimed against the Tutsi minority population in Rwanda by the Hutu majority.  Initially, ancient tribal hatred between the Tutsi and the Hutu was given as the reason for the genocide, but upon further investigation the origin can be found in colonial Rwanda when the Tutsi achieved a better socio-economic standing compared to the Hutu.  The European colonial powers deemed the Tutsi to be the superior "Hamite" race and the Hutu to be from the lowly "Bantu".  This created hatred between the two groups.  Population wise the Tutsi were the minority as were the Jewish people in Nazi Germany.

Was the Rwandan Genocide both socio-economic and racial in nature?

What influence did European Colonial powers have in Rwanda?

Rosenbaum Chapter 7

In this chapter, Rosenbaum argues that the Armenian Genocide was the precursor and prototype for future genocides.  The Ottoman Empire's extermination of the Armenian population in Anatolia was two-fold.  It was both religious and racial.  The Ottomans claimed it to be Jihad against the Armenian Christian infidels.  Similarly, Hitler and Nazi Germany declared war on the Jewish people and their religion.  Each of these atrocities had racial and religious overtones.  Later, genocides in Nigeria, Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka and Bosnia would share similar characteristics.

Were the genocides of the 20th century both religious and racial in nature?

Why did they happen?

Rosenbaum Chapter 4

Rosebaum compares several genocides including the devastation of the Native American population, The Famine in Ukraine, and the Armenian Genocide.  Rosenbaum  discusses the devastation of the Native Americans from their initial contact with Europeans to the intentional slaughter by the United States military.  The Famine in Ukraine an episode in History that I was personally unaware of.  According to Rosenbaum, Stalin in an effort to Sovietize the Ukrainian population sought to annihilate    Ukrainian Nationalism.  The Ottoman Empire, a Islamic theocracy, tried to exterminate the Christian Armenian population in Anatolia and the surrounding area.  Rosenbaum concludes that none of these genocides were the Holocaust.

What beliefs and ideologies drove these genocides?

Were these genocides political, racial, or religious?

Rosenbaum Introduction

Historians have long debated about the global impact of the horrors of the Holocaust.  Some historians approach the Holocaust as an isolated event and some relate it to other bloody genocides of the 20th century.  Rosenbaum relates the genocides in Cambodia, Sudan, Burma and the Ottoman Empire.  Historians also have much debate over the ideologies, reasons, and perpetrators of these atrocities.

Should these atrocities be looked at as isolated events or as a pattern throughout the 20th century?

Do you believe that these tragedies are connected by similar policies?

Chapter 14: The Promise and Limits of Comparison: The Holocaust and 1994 Genocide in Rwanda

In this chapter, Scott Straus introduces the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda. Straus decides to compare the Holocaust and the Rwanda Genocide explaining that "for both Jews and Tutsis were targeted as victims because, and only because, they had the misfortune to be born Jews or Tutsis." He also explains that every case of Genocide has unique dimensions, and that comparing genocides is an important, but difficult, endeavor that deserves critical attention.

Chapter 7 The Armenian Genocide as Precursor and Prototype of the 20th Century Genocide

In this chapter Robert F. Melson introduces us to the Armenian Genocide which was the first total genocide of the 20th century and has served as prototype for genocides that followed. Melson explains, concerning the Armenian Genocide, that between 1915 and the armistice in 1918, 1 million people; out of a population of 2 million were killed. Later, a half-million more Armenians perished as Turkey tried to free itself of foreign occupation and to expel minorities. Both the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide had for goal to destroy in whole an ethno-religious community of ancient provenance. They also differ in multiple ways, the killers of the Armenians relied mostly on massacre and starvation rather than the death camps. The Jews were also despised, feared and hated in most parts of Europe in a way the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were not.

Holocaust 14

In this chapter we see the comparison to the genocide in Germany to the one in Rwanda. Straus tries to compare #'s in people to show the comparison but in a way almost shows the audience how much more death was cause in the holocaust. He tries to compare similar aspects of each event but shows how much of an issue it can potentially cause.

Holocaust 7

In this chapter it states that the Armenian genocide was the first of its kind and was almost the spark of genocide int he world as we know it.  Now in comparison with the holocaust this was based on one society or culture of people having a supreme power over the other which in case we know that the holocaust was to eliminate the Jewish people. These genocides were managed in different ways but had the same idea fueling them.

Holocaust 4

In this chapter the holocaust is compared to two other events that involved mass casualties. The first being the native americans when Colombus came to America which mainly focused on the fact that the Natives immune systems could not fight of the diseases that the men brought over from the other side of the world. It eventually then spoke about how the US wanted to move the Natives on to specific lands known as reservations. The second event it was compared to was the famine in Ukraine in which Stalin wanted to limit thier national power which eventually lead to the deaths from starvation of many many people.

Chapter 4 The Uniqueness of the Holocaust: The Historical Dimension

In this chapter, Steven T. Katz explains that his argument that the holocaust is unique is justified with the argument that "never before has a state set out, as a mater of intentional principle and actualized policy, to annihilate physically every man, woman, and child belonging to a specific people." The genocide of the Native Americans was almost without exception caused by microbes, not militia: "Disease unaided, disease per se, along with the internal social and communal dislocations it created, was the primary, unavoidable, and ubiquitous agency of death among North American Indians between 1492 and 1900." Concerning the famine in Ukraine, what makes the Ukrainian case nongenocidal, and different from the Holocaust at the same time, is the fact that the majority of Ukrainian children survived, but most specifically, were permitted to survive. Another plausible reason is the fact that the famine was neither intended nor man-made. Concerning the Armenian Tragedy because Armenians had the possibility of Armenian Christian conversion to Islam as a way of avoiding deportation and worse, the Armenian Tragedy differs from the Holocaust as well. 

Holocaust intro

In the introduction to his book Alan Rosenbaum poses many different questions and or thoughts about the events that took place during the holocaust. Why did this happen? Is it comparable to other genocides? I came to notice that he spoke about the evil that happened during this time? I pose the question of asking if this was just another case of a type of warfare? I also wonder what the reasoning behind it was.  

Introduction to the Third Edition Rosenbaum

Alan S. Rosenbaum in Introduction to the Third Edition introduces the idea that Ben Kiernan's claim for the significant uniqueness of the Holocaust may gradually but perceptibly be shifting, due to the increasing number of Holocaust and genocide studies who have been merging in various programs in universities, institutions, organizations, books and many other domains. The occurrence and study of other genocides help understand the different dimensions of the Holocaust and bring it in the context of a broader genocide studies investigation. The African genocidal conflict in Darfur, Sudan, is mentioned as well as the boycotting of the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in China.

Holocaust Chapter 14

Straus compares the Rwandan genocide to the one in Germany.  he shows the similarities and differences between the two events with a historiographical approach.  75% of the Tutsi people were murdered in 1994, while 6,000,000 Jews were persecuted during World War II.  Though camparing the  different genocides has its strongpoints, it can be misleading at times.

My question:

Does a genocide happen where strong governments are in place?


Is the willingness to stop such an act worth more than economic sanction or something similair?

Holoaust Chapter 7

This chapter talks about the Armenian genocide just before World War I.  It has many of the same traits of the German led genocide during the second World War.  For years, the Armenian people were considered an inferior brand of people, much like the Germans considered the Jews.  Melson says it is the blueprint for all the genocides that have followed it.  Racism drove the Jewish Holocaust, blaming the whole race for the death of God's only son.  The Armenian people were also allowed to convert to the Muslim religion.


Question:

Was the treatment of the Armenian people known while World War I was going on, and if so, was anyone fighting the fix that wrong?

Holocaust Chapter 4

It tells tht the Holocaust was the undisputed champion of ethnic cleansings, and give information to make that case.  They give examples of the Native Americans that were slaughter starting with the arrival of Columbus.  But a major reason for the extreme deaths for the Indians was illness that was new to them, and thier body could not fight them off.  The Ukarinaian famine of the 1930's was said to be a political statement by Stalin, claiming that the Ukarine government was a free state before, threatening communism.  The Holocaust according to Himmler said, "all Jews must die."


My question:

Jewish people in World War II were killed because of the fact they were Jewish... but because the other examples were not a "total genocide", are we not splitting hairs?

Holocaust Introduction

The intro speaks of many forms of genocide, with the Holocaust being the most extreme.  The intro tells how the recent studies of genocide helps people understand the Holocaust better, as it slips further and further down the timeline.  It also focuses on the forums used to to object to obvious autrocities... example given is China, and the Olympic stage in 2008.  The true criminal was the Sudanese government, but China was indirectly connected.  That doesn't make China the criminal in Darfur.

Questions:

When an ethnic cleansing is happening, why are politics allowed to get in the way of stopping it?


Though the Islamic Republic of Iran denies the Holocaust happened, they threaten a second... Doesn't that statement incrimminate themselves?

The Promise and Limits of Comparison: The Holocaust and the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda Chapter 14

The Rwandan Genocide which resulted in the death of nearly 75 percent of the Tutsi population has been compared to the Holocaust. Scott Straus points out that the crimes were deliberate and coordinated. Straus points out different historians views on both the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. He mentions since the 1994 genocide, studies have linked the two genocides and historians have compared them. I think that is interesting and which I think that links the two together is after the genocide in 1994, the United Nations put together a tribunal to prosecute senior Rwandan officials. This is similar to the tribunal in Nuremberg after the War. Also interesting to point out that back in the 1950's, many Rwandan's wanted to deport the Tutsi population somewhere else, something the Nazi thought of in regards to the Madagascar plan. Since 1994, the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust has been linked together.

When studying genocides, should historians look at the social and political climate?

Should historians link different genocides together or should each be considered separate and different? 

   

The Armenian Genocide as Prescursor and Prototype of Twentieth-Century Genocide Chapter 7

Robert Melson writes about how the Armenian Genocide was the prototype of all genocides that followed it. Melson writes that Armenians, always considered inferior to many Ottomans, were the blunt of many of Ottomans persecution because many Armenians became wealthy and better educated. He writes when Pan-Turkism lifted off, the minorities in trouble. By 1915, Armenians who were in the army were killed or worked to death. Later on the Armenians were deported and the massacre began. Melson points out the similarities between the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. One similarly that stands out that both were ethno-religious minorities and at the time experiencing growth and prosperity. He also wrote about the differences and one was that the Turks massacred the Armenians rather than death camps. Also in the chapter, Melson writes about the Nigerian genocides and Bosnian genocides and how the Armenian Genocide compares to each. The Armenian Genocide was perhaps the first major genocide in history and Melson shows how much history is still shaped by it.

Genocide is a rather new term. Should historians go farther back to study ancient example of genocides?

The Holocaust is unique in terms of historical and social importance. Should historians look at all genocides as being a unique phenomenon or influence in some way by the Holocaust?  

The Uniqueness of the Holocaust: The Historical Dimension chapter 4

Steven Katz in his introduction to chapter 4 expresses his opinion that the Holocaust is the most unique genocide in history. He mentions the Armenian Genocide and the treatment of Gypsies during the World War 2, but Katz points out that the Nazi government wanted to exterminate every man, woman and child. Katz writes about the Native Americans and their treatment since the time of Columbus. He makes it clear that most Native Americans were killed by disease, not intentionally. One paragraph says that during a period of 115 years, only 3.7 percent of the population of Native Americans were killed intentionally. He writes about the different Native American policies and the eventual Indian Reservations. In the third part of the chapter, Katz writes about the Ukrainian Famine in the early 1930's. He makes the point that Stalin tried to kill Ukrainian nationalism and that different genocidal leaders tried the same tactic. He mentions the peasantry in Ukraine and how Stalin dominated them and how the food storage decimated the peasants. In his part on the Armenian Genocide, he points out the nationalistic part of the genocide and Turkish response. A quote that stands out that I think represent all genocide studies is "enemies by definition".

Should historians look at Indian removal differently with the stats pointed out in chapter 4?

Although Germany has laws about wearing Nazi symbols and ideology, should Turkey finally admit the Armenian Genocide and take responsibility?   

Is the Holocaust Unique? Introudction to the Third Edition

Alan Rosenbaum in his introduction for the third edition points out the shifting focus and studies in Holocaust and genocide studies.  He points out how genocide scholars look at the social climate and how that affects genocide. Rosenbaum mentions the word genocide, coined by Raphael Lemkin, was used to describe how the Holocaust was unique. He goes into detail about the prosecution of Nazi war criminals after the end of World War Two and how the different committees whose main job was prosecute Nazis helped influence future laws against war criminals. A major part of his introduction is his description of China's relationship with Sudan, a government that itself have seen genocide in Darfur. Rosenbaum describes how many luminaries were upset with the Chinese government and their involvement with Sudan. Rosenbaum connects the different genocides and points out that the Holocaust is still unique?

If a government is accuse of war crimes or genocide, should the U.S. or any country continue to do business with them?

The Holocaust is the most important genocide in terms of history and impact on the world. Should we look at other earlier genocides such as the Armenian Genocide?

Holocaust Chapter 7

In his essay author Robert Melson opens by stating that the Armenian genocide was the first genocide and served as the prototype for subsequnt genocides in the twentieth century.  He describes the Armenian genocide and then compares it to the Holocaust, the Nigerian and Bosnian genocides.  Both the Armenians and the Jews were low-status religious minorities that became increasingly assertive.  Both genocides followed a revolution.  The Holocaust was different in that it was driven by racism and antisemitism.  While the Armenians were located in one geographic area, the Jews were dispersed.  Conversion was not an option for Jews, but it was for Armenians.  Jews were considered killers of the son of God, and it was feared that they were conspiring.  The death camps used in the Holocaust differed from Armenian massacre and starvation.

Rosenbaum Chapter 14

In Scott Straus's essay, "The Promise and Limits of Comparison: The Holocaust and the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda," Straus offers a historiographical approach to compare and contrast the parallels of the Rwanda genocide and the Holocaust. Using multiple sources, Straus sets out to show comparing two cases of genocide will not only deliver similar parallels, but also varying results which can be problematic. A solution to this would be to "compare genocide cases to non-genocide cases." (255)

Rosenbaum Chapter 7

In Robert F. Melson's essay, "The Armenian Genocide as Precursor and Prototype of Twentieth-Century Genocide," Melson argues the first total genocide was that of the Armenians and that in fact it was the basis for all future genocides, including the Holocaust. Melson compares the Armenian genocide to a third world genocide in Nigeria in which both states "attempted to establish the hegemony of a leading ethnic group over other ethnic segments of society." (131) As is also the case in Yugoslavia and the Holocaust. However, Melson does agree that there are differences between the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust. In particular, the use of death camps by the Nazis.

Rosenbaum Chapter 4

In Steven T. Katz essay, "The Uniqueness of the Holocaust: The Historical Dimension," Katz compares and contrasts the Holocaust to the exploitation of the Native Americans, the famine in the Ukraine, and the Armenian tragedy to show that the Holocaust is in fact a unique instance of genocide. Katz argues that the Holocaust is unique not because of the amount of victims, but because "a state set out, as a matter of intentional principle and actualized policy, to annihilate physically every man, woman, and child belonging to a specific group," (55) the Jewish.

In the case of the Native Americans, the majority of those that died were killed by disease. The intentions of the US government was not to physically eliminate Native American but to at first, eliminate the culture. When attempts at this failed, the Native Americans were forcibly moved to reservations.

In the case of the famine in the Ukraine, in an attempt to eliminate Ukrainian nationalism, Stalin exported grain which was in limited supply to exploit the Ukrainians, not to physically eliminate them. The same can be said for the Armenian tragedy. The intent was not to physically eliminate Armenian people, but to eliminate their politics and religion.

Rosenbaum Intro

In his Introduction to the Third Edition, editor Alan S. Rosenbaum makes the reader aware that the research and study of the Holocaust and other genocide events is forever changing and that new interpretations have been introduced. Rosenbaum notes that each event of genocide, a term coined specifically to describe the "significant uniqueness" of the Holocaust, is more often than not, compared and contrasted to the events leading up to, including and concluding the Holocaust.

Holocaust Chapter 4

Author Steven Katz gets right to the point; the Holocaust is unique because its intention was the complete annihilation of a specific group.  Compared to Native American Indians, Katz states that the main cause of their loss of population was from disease that the Europeans introduced that the Indians had no immunity to.  Compared to the famine in Ukraine which was about political independence,  not the elimination of Ukranian biological stock.  And finally as compared to the Armenian tragedy which was the result of extreme Turkish nationalism and wasn't just targeting Armenians.

Is the Holocaust Unique? Intro

In the intro to this book of essays about the Holocaust, editor Alan Rosenbaum explains that the Holocaust has so many different opinions that it has yet to find its proper place in history.  Should the holocaust be categorized as unique or is it just another genocide?  How is the Holocaust best remembered?  And is it the worst case of genocide?  Rosenbaum poses many questions in this intro ending with "how do we respond to evil?".  The purpose of the essays in the book is to promote clarity and understanding.

George Lefebvre

George Lefebvre was an important historian who focused largely on social interpretations of history. Largely, the importance of peasants to the historical timeline. He specifically focused on French peasantry and their role in the French revolution. His work basically began as an archivist, looking at documents from the Revolution that discussed the daily lives of peasants. In 1928 he was invited by the founders of the Annales school to join the faculty of the University of Strasbourg. He strongly believed in the values of the French Revolution such as truth and justice and his biography of Napoleon was more or less a criticism of the modern day dictators of Europe and their lack of these ideals. He was interested in the revolutionary mentalities of France that were grounded in his study of the peasantry. One criticism of him was that his social interpretation was favorable towards Marxism which was unpopular.

Burke Chapters 3 & 4

Chapter 3 explains that Fernand Braudel was a very important figure to the Annales school. Braudel's first major work, The Mediterranean, was one of the most complete historical texts to emerge from this group of historians. Starting his historical studies, he began by looking at the relationship of Phillip II of Spain to the Mediterranean, but after meeting Febvre he soon realized the larger importance of Geogpraphy and the smaller importance of individuals to history. One of the greatest strengths of Braudel's work was his separation of time into three different rates. He speaks of the quick, but insignificant, passage of events that occur "at the surface" of history. The middle is the cultural passage of time; the movement of ideas and trade, and finally, the slowest but most important, is the geographic time. The geographic time which Braudel writes about in The Mediterranean is the closest to a global understanding of history because it doesn't focus on anything specific, instead speaking of the relationships of a people to the terrain they live in. His work made the historical world realize the importance of space, rather than people, to the passage of history. Another of his great contributions to the Annales school was when he was President of the Sixth Section of the School. He created another organization which focused on interdisciplinary studies, and moved them all to the same area of the city.

Chapter 4 discusses the new generation of historians that grew up after the world wars. This group of Historians either build their arguments on Braudel or Febvre's ideas or argued against them. They either agreed or disagreed with the importance of ideas like "quantitative study", geo-history, or the study of mentalites. Phillipe Aries disagrees with many of the previous historians ideas and argues that childhood was important in following history and understanding the cause and effect of humans.

Daileader and Whalen Thirty-Seven

Henry Rousso is a historian of the contemporary history specializing in the Vichy regime.  Rousso indicates that there was some collaboration between the Vichy regime and the Nazis.  Rousso's research contradicts the comments spoken by former Vichy officials like Francois Lehideux.  Rousso research concludes that it was the Vichy regime that sought collaboration with the Nazis and not the other way around as was formerly believed.  Rousso employs the narrative form in his writing.  Rousso discusses the political, social, and cultural effects of the occupation of the French population.

Does Rousso's work reveal hidden truths regarding the Vichy regime?

Did the Vichy officials try to benefit and profit from the Nazis at the expense of their own people?

Daileader and Whalen Chapter Thirty-Two

Michelle Perrot has written histories on labor history, prison history, and women's history.  Originally, she had a scientific approach, but later developed a more literary approach to writing.  She was raised in a well to do family and went to a catholic all girls school despite he parents being anti-clerical.  In this religious environment she learned to show compassion which would lead her to fight against injustice in her adult life.  Though not a communist, she did have leftist leaning.  She was very vocal during the Algerian war and when Khrushchev denounced Stalin.  She defended and supported workers and labor unions writing several histories about strikes and other social injustices in France.

How did her early life influence her life's work?

Was her work politically motivated?

Daileader and Whalen Chapter Twenty-Seven

Georges Lefebvre was a prominent French historian and leader of the Annales School.  He studied the social history of the the peasant class during the French Revolution which was influenced by Marxism.  Therefore, socialist thought and belief was not popular nor welcomed in Nazi Germany and their occupied lands.  Lefebvre was a member of the resistance during WWII.  After the war, he became a leader and supporter of the communist party in France.  These social beliefs and principles influenced his writing of history as is clearly shown in his work regarding the Bourgeoisie and the peasant classes during the French Revolution.

Would Lefebvre writing have been different had he not been a communist?

How does one political and social belief influence history?

Burke Chapter Four

The Third Generation at the Annales school came after the retirement of Braudel from the presidency of the Sixth section in 1972.  Jacques Le Goff took over the presidency.  It was during this time that the Annales school had its first woman among its members, Christiane Klapisch, a historian of the family unit during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.  The Third Generation interests in psychohistory and history of ideologies and mentalities (including Anthropology) was also a major shift.  The Annales school had also seen a return to the historical narrative.  The journal experienced larger print runs and wider distribution.

Why is psychology important to the field of History?

Do social ideologies change over time or is there a cycle/pattern?

Burke Chapter Three

Fernand Braudel originally wanted to write a history of Philip II and the Mediterranean during his time in a prison camp in WWII, however, his thesis quickly became the Mediterranean and Phillip II.  In other words, it was imperative to understand the situation in the Mediterranean before one could understand the role of the Spanish Empire.  Braudel expanded his work to include the economic, social, and demographic history in the Mediterranean.  He studied how other cultures and civilizations had influenced the Mediterranean and Spain to identify the wider picture in the historical landscape.  Braudel succeeded Fabvre as director of the Annales in 1956 until his death in 1985.

Why is it important to study the history of a region before focusing on a particular nation?

Why is it important to understand the economic and social history of the region?

Michelle Perrot

Michelle Perrot is a French Historian whose work is well known throughout the world. Michelle has always demonstrated a commitment to telling the stories of those who have traditionally been left out of history, this explains her interests which are labor history, the history of prisons, and women's history. Her most famous works all deal with these topics. She found her love of history through her Bible history teacher. She was a political activist taking place in movements and had a leading role in the anti-Algerian war of 1954 movement and helped to organize a demonstration against the war that took place on the streets of Caen. After that she chose to study the working class; she gets involved in the events of May 68 in Paris and becomes one of the founders of the new university that opened in response to the crisis. She also participates with two of her colleagues that she was offering courses in women's history with in demonstrations and other activities as part of the fights to make abortion legal in France. Michelle Perrot was a critical figure in women's history becoming a part of historical study.

Rousso

The thing that I respect most about Rousso is how he was able to objectively criticize his own work. I feel like most times historians or other great thinkers may be hardheaded when it comes to their own work, especially if their piece becomes widely popular or accepted. However, Rousso's ability to step back and say that his work needed revision makes me respect him so much.

Henry Rousso

Henry Rousso is a historian whose main focus was during the time when the Nazi's were occupying france during world war 2, a time period known as the Vichy time period. During this time period he focused on many different collaborations that France had with Nazi Germany mainly with the industries that had an effect on the war. This time period was what he was most famous for and the usage of collective memory first focusing on economic history then moving forward to the political aspect of it . 

Perrot

Perrot lead the charge for Women's History. Women were always left out of history so for someone to study them is monumental. However, she not only looked at women, or were always left out of the history books, but she also looked at prisoners and other people who don't make history for whatever reason. Perrot started a journal that would eventually stop being published only to have her students pick up where she left off and began to publish a new journal only years later.

Lefebvre

Focused his attention on peasants in French society, which was something that was somewhat unheard of at this point. We are so used to reading about the great kings and queens of a nation so to know that a historian spent most of his time looking at the underbelly and the working class of France is refreshing. Personally, I'd rather learn about peasantry as opposed to royalty or clergy.

Burke 3 & 4

In both these chapters we learn about the next few generations of Annales historians. The second generation is lead by Braudel whose thesis was about King Phillip II. Not only was Braudel a part of the Annales school but he would also become the director of the school. He was inspired by his mentors and directors of the past and now it was his turn to do the same for the new, younger historians under his watch. Like Brooke has mentioned, this generation really saw a great amount of quantitative data and really focused on things like the economic structure of a society as opposed to just the social or religious. Once we get to the third generation we see a huge amount of change. The biggest being that women are now a studied part of history. This generation continues with the quantitative data like we saw in the second generation and they also go back to studying the political and military aspects of history.

Michelle Perrot

Michelle Perrot was a historian whom focused the majority of her studies on women in history and people whom never had a "say" in history like workers and people whom were locked up. The reason why she is so important is because she is the historian whom actually solidified the study of women's history. 

Georges Lefebvre

Georges Lefebvre is most well known for his controversial  marxist ideas regarding the peasant class during the French revolution. zOne of his most famous topics that he spoke about was the mental state of mind of the peasant class during this time focusing on the fear that they felt. I found him very interesting I noticed that psychologist  focused mostly on mental states not historians. 

Burke 3&4

In chapter three of Burke he describes the second generation of the Annales school and begins to speak about Braudel and his view on the Mediterranean and King Philip II. Braudel wanted to cover these events by a "total history" when looking at this total history he covered things such as the weather, social, political, and economic points of view. This then branched off into looking at history in a whole new different point of view. 

Chapter four of Burke introduces you into the third generation of the Annales school which focuses on how the time that has changed the different views on history. It begins to explain that not only one person should study an event but many, not just men should study but women as well. I took that they want as many points of views as they possibly can get. 

Is there a possibly way to cover every single thing about history?
is total history possible to obtain? 

Burke Ch 4

This chapter discusses the intellectual shifts in the third generation of the Annales.  This generation was the first to include women historians and ideas from outside of France.  The third generation has three major themes.  First is the rediscovery of mentalities through the research of historians such as Philippe Aries and his discovery of the history of childhood.  Next there is an attempt to employ quantitative methods in cultural history.  For example, Michel Vovelle studied dechristianization and attitudes towards death through the study of wills.  Finally, the reaction against these methods is examined.

Chapter 37 Henry Rousso

Henry Rousso is the leading historian on the Vichy regime, a time when Nazi Germany occupied France during World War 2. While still relatively young, he wrote a article that explored how French industries had collaborated with the Nazis. His first monograph looked at the last days of the Petain regime. Also in the monograph he looked at other groups living in France at the time. His work The Vichy Syndrome looked at the impact of the Vichy regime from 1944 to then present day. His research used collective memory as a tool for research. His work on the Vichy regime has made him a popular historian and media personality.

What exactly is collective memory and should historians use it in their research?

Chapter 32 Michelle Perrot

Michelle Perrot not only made great strides in one area of study, she made it in three distinct fields of study: labor history, history of prisons, and women's history. She studied under Ernest Labrousse, a leading economy historian at the time. Her first major work was Les Ouvriers en greve, which described in detail every strike in France from 1871 to 1890. She went to archives in every part of France to collect data. She continued to write about labor history and is considered one of the worlds foremost historians on the subject. She later wrote about prisons and her work The Impossible Prison looked at the relationship between criminals, poverty, and revolution. While teaching, she offered courses in women's history and she later wrote about the topic. 

Is it better for historians to stick to one subject or be well versed in other, more complex topics and areas?

Chapter 27 Georges Lefebvre

Georges Lefebvre was one of France's most controversial historians. His work on the French Revolution influence historians. While is influence is undeniable, what has been debated among historians was his use of Marxism in his study of the revolution and his socialist ties. As noted in the chapter, he has supporters who still view is work on the revolution still relevant. His first book about peasants in the Nord region reflected his growing social awareness. Soon after his first book, he was introduced to the Annales school. His book The Great Fear of 1789: Rural Panic in Revolutionary France became an important look at peasant life during the revolution. He used grievances lists to rte peasant life. This work enhanced his reputation among historians. The growing political environment no doubt influenced his work and career. When war broke out, his work was deemed subversive and his reputation suffered. After the war, he retired but continued to study and write. His work La Revoultion francaise became the most standard text on the revolution. Lefebvre's career was like the era he lived in: turbulent but productive at the same time.

Should historians look at political alliances while studying another historians work?

Burke Chapters 3 and 4

In chapter 3, Burke describes the second generation of the Annales school and in particular Braudel. Braudel's monumental The Mediterranean was greatly influenced by the Annales school and their journal.  I found interesting that a historian Febvre attacked often named Friedrich Ratzel greatly influenced Braudel and his work on The Mediterranean. Burke brought up an interesting evaluation about Braudel's book. Burke wrote that although Braudel tried to write a "total history", Braudel had little to say about attitudes, values etc. It seems that when ever a historian writes a radical new perspective on a topic, readers and critics tear it apart. After Febvre's death in 1956, Braudel became the de-facto leader of the Annales school. Chapter three also includes a part on Ernest Labrousse, who started to introduced Marxism into the Annales school.

my question is when does a radical, new perspective on history become a important piece of historical writing?

Chapter 4 deals with the third generation of the Annales school and it should be pointed out that this generation took shape in the years following 1968. This new generation did not want one historian dominating the spotlight like Febvre and Braudel did. The third generation also included women historians, including Mona Ozouf who we have studied. They broke away from France and started to study abroad, including America. There were three themes that Burke talked about: mentalities, cultural history, and historical anthropology. Historians like Aries and Delumeau is discussed. Burke talks about the changing trends in history at the time and how that influenced the newer generation of the Annales.

My question is what generation, if any, is left of the Annales school?

Burke Chapter 3

Chapter 3 introduces us to Fernand Braudel,a French historian who published  The Mediterranean.  He approached history in three ways:  1.  He emphasized the significance of events and the limitations on the freedom of action of individual events.  He referred to events as "surface disturbances".  2.  The history of structures such as economic systems and states and 3. The history of man and his environment.  Braudel credits the Annales school for his inspiration.  Braudel  became director of the Annales.

Henry Rousso

Born in 1954 in Alexandria, Egypt, Henry Rousso specialized in the legacies of the Vichy regime. Qualified as a University teacher and research supervisor, Rousso who once studied economic history moved onto political history. Rousso wrote in the narrative form about a variety of cultural products using psychoanalysis. His work has been highly criticized because of the use of collective memory. Rousso became a critic of his own work as well. He acknowledged that his work would need to be revised due to periodization.

Michelle Perrot

Born in 1928 in Paris, Michelle Perrot was a pioneer in the study of Women's history. Perrot's work included the study of people that have been left out of history. In addition to the history of women, she also researches workers and prisoners. A teacher by trade, Perrot successfully began to integrate Women's history into the discipline and later formed a journal devoted to Women's history. Though the journal came to an end in 1985, another journal began publication in 1995, founded by a group led by on of Perrot's students.

Georges Lefebvre

Born in 1874, Georges Lefebvre was a specialist in French peasantry. Though his works are considered highly controversial because of his Marxist views and political allegiances, Lefebvre acquired and "influential position" and "ultimate authority" on the French Revolution. Lefebvre works focus on the social interpretations of the peasantry social group, in particular, the mentality of fear.

George Lefebvre

George Lefebvre was a prominent historian of the French Revolution but there is some controversy surrounding his work.  His social, or Marxist interpretation of the Revolution has been challenged as well as his political allegiances.  At one point in his career, Lefebvre was the foremost authority on the study of the French Revolution.  Because he was a specialist in the study of French peasantry, he wrote about the revolution from that point of view.  His career stumbled a bit during WWII when his books were put on the "banned" list because his writings were thought to promote French nationalism.  Then in 1954 a professor and revisionist from the University of London named Alfred Cobban challenged Lefebvre by criticizing him for examining the Revolution from a single-sided view.  Subsequent historians have questioned Lefebvre's social interpretations of the French Revolution and have introduced new ways of looking at the event.  The article raises the question as to exactly how much an historian is influenced by his or her current political environment.

Burke Chapters 3 & 4

In chapter 3, Burke introduces the reader to Fernand Braudel and the second generation of the Annales.  Inspired by his "intellectual father," Lucien Febvre, Braudel,  took a new approach to his thesis about King Philip II and the Mediterranean by taking a different approach to history. His massive book which is in three parts covers the history of the relationship between man and the environment, economic, social and political structures, and finishes with what he intended as his original thesis, the fast moving history of events during the reign of King Philip II. This was done purposely to show that the history of events can only be understood through Geo-history.

Aside from his thesis, Braudel became the director of the Annales and inspired many younger historians to take yet another set of new approaches to history. It is during the second generation of the Annales that there is a rise in the history of material cultures, geo-history, and a deeper look into economic history. The second generation also led to a rise in the use of quantitative and demographic history as well. This led the way into new trends of religious history, cultural history, the history of mentalities, the history of prices and population.

In chapter 4, Burke introduces the reader to the third generation of the Annales. It is during this third generation in which the Annales spews off into three different directions. Not only was this the first generation to include women but, it also took Febvre's ideologies to a new level by the splintering off of the history of mentalities to include historical psychology and the study of family, emotions, and health. The second change was a return to the scholarship in political and historical biography. The third direction, which wasn't entirely new but much debated, was the quantitative approach to history especially in the subjects of religion, books and literacy.

Michelle Perrot

Michelle Perrot is best known for her studies of women's history although she also did extensive work and research on labor and prison history.  She told the story of people who were typically in the "shadows" of historical research; women, workers and prisoners.  She is credited with making women's history a valid subject of study in the 1970s.  Perrot has also made these topics and their scholarly debate available to the public by publishing in more popular historical magazines and through French radio shows.

The article describes how Perrot was greatly influenced by observing female prisoners in a prison yard adjacent to her school but does not indicate if she specifically studied female prisoners.  I wonder if she did.

Topic Proposal

For my topic, I'm going to look at Functionalism vs Intentionalism, which deals with trying to understand why and how the Holocaust occurred and who is responsible.

Topic proposal

For my historiography paper, I would like to examine how historians have viewed the relationship between master and slave in the antebellum south. I will be looking at the different approaches historians have taken on the subject whether it be psychology, economic, etc. In addition I will compare and contrast their different viewpoints.

Essay Topic

Essay Topic: "The Parsley Massacre of 1937" (Dominican Massacre of 30000 Haitians)

Brundage 2

This chapter in Brundage is specifically on the two types of sources that historians use. On the other hand he also talks about the uses of other sources such as journals, papers, and even letters. When speaking of these types of sources although they bring in insightful thoughts they can not be used as factual events because they are only through either the press's eyes or the composer of the specific document.
Primary sources are usually first hand accounts written by some one who was actually there the secondary sources are written from an outside perspective.

Is there any way to validate a letter or journal as a primary source? how?

Brundage Chapter 2

The chapter discusses the types of sources used by history students. It breaks sources into two groups, primary and secondary sources. Primary sources being manuscripts and published sources, while secondary sources are books,manuscripts,and periodicals. The chapter states that the updated peroidicals are almost more accurate than thr traditional ways oof learning.

My question is: Is revisionist history ever going to reach a point where it doesn't need revision?

Brundage Chapter Two

Brundage discusses two categories of historical sources:  primary sources and secondary sources.  Historians consult both to develop well documented and supported works.  Primary sources can be manuscripts such as diaries, letters, documents, and newspapers that give a first-hand account of the actual events and time period being researched.  Secondary works are usually books, articles, and essays that are studies on a particular area of history and that offer a historian's  personal perspective.

How do we know what sources to use and when to use them?

Why is it important to use good primary and secondary sources?

Brundage Chapter 2

In this chapter, Brundage explains what primary sources and secondary sources are and what they consist off. Written primary sources can be classified into two major categories which are manuscript sources and published sources. A manuscript is considered to be "Any handwritten or typed record or communication that has not been printed or otherwise duplicated in significant quantities for public dissemination."  Letters, memoirs, and diaries are common examples of manuscript sources. Published sources are sources which were meant to be published and widely distributed from the beginning. Newspapers, advertising,and  business reports are published sources.
Secondary sources are written on a topic from an indirect perspective as opposed to primary sources which are generally a firsthand account. Secondary sources use primary sources and other secondary sources for their credibility. Books, essays and articles are the most common secondary sources.

At what point do stories, legends, and myths become primary sources?

Brundage 2

Historians look at two types of sources when it comes to historical research, primary and secondary. Most students when writing a paper or working on a project will usually look at secondary sources which we know are writings about an event, not a first person account. Primary sources are the diaries or journals or interviews from people that surround a certain event. These sources can be extremely useful but also can often times hold bias. A diary entry from a king and an entry from a peasant about the same event are going to be extremely different.

I liked Brooke's question, it was what I was thinking about: with older primary sources how do we determine the authenticity?

Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie

He was a student of the Annales way of thought.  Ladurie felt that for four hundred years, history stood still.  Along with that, so did the growth of the people.  He gave the term total history in his book called Paysans which was a study of a region's people, religion, weather, etc. in southern France.  Ladurie stayed away from the study of what I call "mainstream history", meaning war, monarchy, exploration, etc.  in favor of this study. He seems to put an vast importance on the region's climate over time.  He was a true pioneer the way he was able to use his data to show the warming and cooling pattern of the region.

My question... though his way of documenting data was truly unique and unheard of during the time, was it helpful?  What did studying the peasants prove in the long run?

Mona Ozouf

Born in Brittany, she was a philosophy professor with different view on the French Revolution.  She published a book in 1976, which was translated in 1988 called "Festivals and the French Revolution".  the way I read was that she called the French Revolution a festival driven by fear, like most of the festivals during the time. the The Revoltion was an attempt at Utopia, as well as an attempt to bring the State together. I found it interesting that she called them sacred, because of the decline belief in Christianity.

My question... with the way of life being the way it was in France in 1789, along with enlightenment showing people you could believe in God the way it worked for you, why did she place such importance on the need for the festivals to be sacred?

Philippe Aries

Born in 1914, he is credited with being the first man to make the study of childhood a legitimate practice.  is father wanted him in the field of engineering, but eventually allowed him to chase his true love, history.  He wrote a book in 1960 that was translated in English in 1962 tilted, "Centuries of Childhood". it was an examination of the relationship between parents and children from fifteenth to eighteenth century France.  he was a camp councilor that was in favor of promoting the expansion of families. This was an act that Aries was not in agreement with, and investigated further. He found that the French were using form of birth control as early as the seventeenth century. It also shows that until recent times, children were used for trade or for sale. Many families would go hungry if they did not have children to provide for work.

My main question is this... why were the French practicing birth control during this time?

My follow up question is... is this such a rogue action that is someone of power were to find out, what action would be taken?

Brundage Ch 2

Brundage describes different examples df primary and secondary sources in Chapter 2.  He urges the researcher to consider all types of sources when doing their project but he warns that you should consider the motives of both the author and editor.  For example, newspaper articles are designed to influence public opinion  and a paper's political orientation should be considered.

I would like to learn more about "monographs" as i didnt quite understand that section of the chapter and how to locate newspaper articles.  I was also wondering if "popular" books on a topic are acceptable sources for this project.

Brundage Chapter 2

In chapter 2, Brundage goes over the different types of sources. First there are primary sources. Primary sources can be broken up into two categories:manuscript and publish sources. Manuscript are anything written or typed that has not been replicated and can include manuscripts of meetings between world leaders. Publish sources are books, diaries, and letters. Brundage also goes over secondary works, such as books on  regions or countries. As historians, which sources do we used primary and which ones should we avoid? Also do we consider popular books on history in the same light as those of scholarly works?

Brundage Chapter 2

There are two types of sources that historians use in their research, primary and secondary sources. Primary sources can be in the form of manuscript sources, which are not intended for public view, and published sources. Published sources can include letters, diaries, newspapers, and autobiographies.

Secondary sources are written histories based on primary sources and come in many forms. Books, one of the most popular forms of source, cover a wide array of historical information from very broad down to very narrow historical context. Essays, which are shorter than books, also can cover a wide array of historical topics. Articles are typically published in periodicals and can give historians ideas on new perspectives. Dissertations and Conference Papers are also available as secondary sources, and are typically narrow in topic content.

How can you tell if a particular primary source is authentic and not something that was just made up? 

Burke Chapter 1 & 2

Chapter 1:
Burke explains that in order for any revolution to be successful you need to look at what came before. The same idea applies to History. The new histories that historians write emerge from the understanding of the previous history that was written. The authors of these new histories build their arguments up from criticisms of these "traditional" histories. The Annales school didn't just look at histories of people it looked at outside fields such as psychology, and sociology.

Chapter 2:
One of the two founder of the Annales school, Lucien Febvre is quoted in the chapter as arguing that "a river might be treated by one society as a barrier, yet as a root by another." Here he is looking at history through the relationship of a people to their environment. Marc Bloch, the second founder focused on a multidisciplinary approach to history; social, economics, and political factors all weighed equally. 

How has the Annales school greatly affected the 20th century historical writing?

Was this excursively a French idea? Or did Americans and British create similar counter histories in the same period?

Daileader & Whalen Chapter 31

Mona Ozouf was a champion of the women's role during the French Revolution.  Previously, a lot had been written by men about men in the French Revolution.  However, Ozouf's research was not only what women's role was during the French Revolution, but what drove them to take action.  Did Christianity, Ethics, and Morals play a part?  Ozouf disproved a lot of misconceptions regarding women in the time period by digging deeper to find a larger historical narrative dating back centuries before the Revolution i.e. Joan of Arc.

Why was it important for Ozouf to explore women's role in the French Revolution?

Do other periods in history have to similarly be looked at again?

Daileader & Whalen Chapter 26

Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie studied family unit in France throughout time.  He was convinced the large long term communities resulted in economic-social thriving areas of mercantilism and educational learning.  As agriculture declined, so would the wages of peasants in countryside.  This would result in a crisis when population increased, wages decreased, and food production plunged.  In addition, Ladurie studied climate change.  Ladurie argued that the Vikings went to North America to find a warmer and more suitable climate due the the cold in Europe during that period.  Ladurie furthered the Annales school's cause.

What led to certain area become densely populated?

What were the climate conditions in the 16th century that caused an agricultural crisis?

Daileader & Whalen Chapter 2

I found Phillipe Aries to be a very interesting historian.  He was a Catholic and conservative in yet, he was part of the new social school of thought that was very progressive.  For instance, he spent a great part of his life documenting the relationship between children and parents and the population growth and decline in Europe.  His research led him to be a public political figure in France.  However, when Aries criticized Charles de Gaulle's decision to grant Algeria oversees territory status he fell out of favor with the public and the government.  He continued to study family dynamics and population growth trends.

How was Aries a revolutionary in his own right?

Was Aries right about Europe's declining population growth?

Burke Chapter 2

The Annales Movement had two leaders, Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch.  Both studied at the Ecole Normale Superieure.  Febvre was a scholar of 16th century history and Bloch was a scholar of medieval history, but both applied a similar social approach to their disciplines.  In 1929, they published a journal called "Annales d'histoire economique et sociale" which promoted dialogue and sharing ideas amongst historians.  Under the leadership of Febvre the Annales school became an institution.  Perhaps, one of the biggest achievements of Febvre and the Annales school was when he was called upon to help reform the French higher-education system in the 1940's.

Were there other schools in Europe and abroad that had a similar purpose?

Who else was involved in the reformation of the French Higher-Education system?

Burke Chapter 1

Burke discusses the shift in focus in writing history after the enlightenment and into the late 19th century.  There was a shift from a political and military narrative characterized by biographies of kings and great military leaders to a social history.  However, this was not unique to France, this was happening in Britain, Germany, and in the United States.  By the year 1900, historians of the Annales School had become quite critical of the established political and military focused brand of history.  This does not mean that there were not some historians before the 18th century who wrote social narratives, but the overwhelming majority were of the established school of thought.

When did the shift to writing social narratives begin?

Did the French Revolution expedite this school of thought?

Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie and Mona Ozouf

Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie argues that the period from the beginning of the fourteenth century until about 1720 was one where the demographics underwent a re-balancing. In his opinion the driving force of social change is not kings, generals, cardinals or scientists, but forests, pastures, fields, and most importantly the peasants and their relation to the land. Ladurie creates a history that is based more in demography and economics than on genealogy and politics. He links demographic and economic changes that were happening during the 16th century to new forms of religious and social consciousness. Ladurie argues that the agricultural changes which were being implemented by the peasantry of the time had more to do with the revolutionary ideas than any ruling or religious figure did. These changes in economic makeup of the peasants opened the doors for revolutionary ideas to take root.

Could we use Ladurie's technique of evaluating economic data to rewrite the history of the 20th century? Would it reveal a different history?


Mona Ozouf has a profound interest for education. She focuses on cultural anthropology and language. What is interesting about her is that she challenged the normal interpretation of the French revolution which focused on social and economic ideas. She instead focused on the social sphere that was created by French identity, education and land distribution.

To what extent does education affect a specific period of History?