Chapter 1:
This chapter discussed the different approaches to history. Some of different fields/schools of history that are mentioned include, cliometrics, the annales school, psycohistory, microhistory, microhistory, marcohistory, and postmodernism. It also discusses the shift in the study of history. Historians went from studying only the lives of the elites, nobility, and military heros to studying the lives of ordinary people. By understanding the numerous fields of history, one can better understand the historiography of a given topic.
1. Do you think one field of history is stronger than another or do you think they are all equal?
2. What do you think sparked the shift from the study of the histories of elites, nobility, and military heros to the study of the common?
Chapter 2:
This chapter discusses the diffrent kinds of sources. There are two kinds of sources, primary and secondary. A Primary source includes things such as newspapers, journals, diaries, records, and documents. While on the other hand, secondary sources are books written about a particular event.
1. Which is more useful a primary source or a secondary source?
Chapter 3:
Within this chapter, the different resources available to students are discusses. Brundage mentions good databases that are useful when trying to find journal articles. He also gives advice on research skills and how to sray organized when researching a topic. It is crucial to have an up to date bibliography when researching.
1. Are there any red flags one should look out for when researching?
Chapter 4:
In this chapter, Brundage is telling his readers to read in between the lines. It is important when reading historical writing that the reader knoews the author. The author could be bias on topic because of his/hers experiences or the could be influenced by their own time period. By understanding more about the author, it allows that reader to better understand their work. Also, it is important to read many different works on a subject because it allows the reader to get varying interpretations of the subject.
1. Why is it important to know an author's background before reading his/hers writing?
2. Why should you read different authors work on the same subject?
Chapter 5:
In this chapter, Brundage goes over how to write a historiographical paper. Through the examples he gives, I was better able to grasp the concept of what a historiography is and how to write a historiographical paper. He also gives advice on note taking and how to pick a solid topic for a historiography paper.
1. Why is it so important to narrow down a subject when choosing a topic for a historiography paper?
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Rosenbaum's Is the Holocaust Unique?: Perspectives on Comparative Genocide
Introduction:
In Rosenbaum's introductions to his book, he states that this book is a way to look a genocides at a comparative level. Historians have been looking at and researching different genocides for years and Rosenbaum's point in writing his book is to relate and compare different genocides and how historians have viewed them.
Chapter 4:
This chapter dealt with why the holocaust is unique. Katz uses the case of the Native Americans and the coming of Columbus, the famine in the Ukraine, the Armenian tragedy to help support his conclusion that the holocaust is unique. He uses facts, such as, most Native Americans died because of disease not murder to support that these events are incomparable to the holocaust. I agree with Katz that the holocaust is unique or do I only agree with him because of how I was raised/taught to view the holocaust?
Chapter 6:
This chapter deals with the Atlantic slave trade and the holocaust at a comparative level. The main difference between the two is that the holocaust was an isolated event (Europe, mostly Germany), while on the other hand, the Atlantic slave trade took place worldwide. Another point made was that in the holocaust the outcome was death and the outcome of the Atlantic slave trade was enslavement. Therefore I ask, is enslavement a genocide?
Chapter 7:
The main argument in this chapter was, was the Armenian Genocide a prototype for future genocides? Both the Armenian genocide and the holocaust were about religion and race. Did the German's use the Armenian genocide as prototype? Some would argue that the Armenians had a choice to change their religion, while on the other hand, the Jewish people had no choice in the matter. This makes me question, if you have a choice is it not a genocide?
Chapter 10:
Kinue Tokudome's "The Holocaust and the Japanese Atrocities," examines Japanese War Crimes and the Holocaust. He focuses his essay around two doctors, Dr. Yausa and Dr. Munch. Both of these doctors although they were half a world apart were doing similar things. Both doctors were doing medical experiments on humans during world war two. Dr. Yausa, a Japanese doctor, felt remorse, while on the other hand, Dr. Munch, a German doctor, did not. The Chinese were being dehumanized by the Japanese in a similar way the Jewish people were being dehumanized by the Germans. Should this two events be compared or should they be look at individually? Do you think that they Jewish and Chinese share something unique?
Chapter 14:
This chapter compares the holocaust and Rwanda. I found this chapter to be the most interesting because I felt as though I knew the most about these two events. Prior to the European colonization of Rwanda, there was no hatred between the Tutsis and the Hutus. The hatred was created by the Europeans. The author tries to compare the similarities between the two events, but the only one I can really see is the both the Jewish and the Tutsi were both the minorities. He also tries to look at the causes of the two events.
Chapter 16:
This chapter deals solely with German historians and how they have interpreted the holocaust. Kansteiner, the author of the essay, examines how they have viewed the holocaust and how their views have changed over time. He concluded that German historians and scholars have split up the holocaust up into four different phases that changed over time: 1. the development of the final solution 2. the debate of Nazism and is it a form of fascism 3. the role of Hitler and the Holocaust 4. the focus on different studies of the final solution
Chapter 17:
This chapter compares the holocaust to other genocides. Through different facts and statistics, the two historians are trying to argue if the holocaust can be or should be compared to other genocides. While one historian believes that the holocaust is incomparable, the other suggests that it is comparable to other genocides. There have been many events that have not been considered genocides, that possibly should be. This makes me wonder what makes a genocide a genocide and are we as people being unsympathetic and the "bad guys" for not naming an event a genocide?
In Rosenbaum's introductions to his book, he states that this book is a way to look a genocides at a comparative level. Historians have been looking at and researching different genocides for years and Rosenbaum's point in writing his book is to relate and compare different genocides and how historians have viewed them.
Chapter 4:
This chapter dealt with why the holocaust is unique. Katz uses the case of the Native Americans and the coming of Columbus, the famine in the Ukraine, the Armenian tragedy to help support his conclusion that the holocaust is unique. He uses facts, such as, most Native Americans died because of disease not murder to support that these events are incomparable to the holocaust. I agree with Katz that the holocaust is unique or do I only agree with him because of how I was raised/taught to view the holocaust?
Chapter 6:
This chapter deals with the Atlantic slave trade and the holocaust at a comparative level. The main difference between the two is that the holocaust was an isolated event (Europe, mostly Germany), while on the other hand, the Atlantic slave trade took place worldwide. Another point made was that in the holocaust the outcome was death and the outcome of the Atlantic slave trade was enslavement. Therefore I ask, is enslavement a genocide?
Chapter 7:
The main argument in this chapter was, was the Armenian Genocide a prototype for future genocides? Both the Armenian genocide and the holocaust were about religion and race. Did the German's use the Armenian genocide as prototype? Some would argue that the Armenians had a choice to change their religion, while on the other hand, the Jewish people had no choice in the matter. This makes me question, if you have a choice is it not a genocide?
Chapter 10:
Kinue Tokudome's "The Holocaust and the Japanese Atrocities," examines Japanese War Crimes and the Holocaust. He focuses his essay around two doctors, Dr. Yausa and Dr. Munch. Both of these doctors although they were half a world apart were doing similar things. Both doctors were doing medical experiments on humans during world war two. Dr. Yausa, a Japanese doctor, felt remorse, while on the other hand, Dr. Munch, a German doctor, did not. The Chinese were being dehumanized by the Japanese in a similar way the Jewish people were being dehumanized by the Germans. Should this two events be compared or should they be look at individually? Do you think that they Jewish and Chinese share something unique?
Chapter 14:
This chapter compares the holocaust and Rwanda. I found this chapter to be the most interesting because I felt as though I knew the most about these two events. Prior to the European colonization of Rwanda, there was no hatred between the Tutsis and the Hutus. The hatred was created by the Europeans. The author tries to compare the similarities between the two events, but the only one I can really see is the both the Jewish and the Tutsi were both the minorities. He also tries to look at the causes of the two events.
Chapter 16:
This chapter deals solely with German historians and how they have interpreted the holocaust. Kansteiner, the author of the essay, examines how they have viewed the holocaust and how their views have changed over time. He concluded that German historians and scholars have split up the holocaust up into four different phases that changed over time: 1. the development of the final solution 2. the debate of Nazism and is it a form of fascism 3. the role of Hitler and the Holocaust 4. the focus on different studies of the final solution
Chapter 17:
This chapter compares the holocaust to other genocides. Through different facts and statistics, the two historians are trying to argue if the holocaust can be or should be compared to other genocides. While one historian believes that the holocaust is incomparable, the other suggests that it is comparable to other genocides. There have been many events that have not been considered genocides, that possibly should be. This makes me wonder what makes a genocide a genocide and are we as people being unsympathetic and the "bad guys" for not naming an event a genocide?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)