Tsdavis85's Blog

Week Four

tsdavis85 — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:47:49 +0000

The readings for this week, Reagan and Rossinow, were both much different than I had anticipated. I had not expected the randomness of the topics, but once we got into class I understood more the purpose for reading these works. Both took similar approaches to their structure. Both had excellent introductions that set the background for the rest of the book, and both had strong, direct theses. The two readings also were based on case studies. Chicago for Reagan and Austin for Rossinow. I felt that this was a weak point in both works. I understand that Chicago is a solid case study for a book on abortion because it is a big metro area with all kinds of people in it, but I still felt that the book would have been improved had Reagan taken a somewhat different approach. She could have taken a few case studies from different parts of the country, say Chicago, Los Angeles, and Dallas as larger cities, and maybe a smaller city in the South and a smaller in the North as well. This would have covered a more broad area that could actually be considered a study of the country more than taking one city and claiming it to be a study indicative of the whole country. Rossinow could have done the same, but I feel it would have been more effective for Reagan’s book. I also wish that Reagan had not based most of her research on coroner and court records. Maybe she could have interviewed some women or doctors from this time period to strengthen her book. As far as reading goes, I enjoyed the Reagan book much more. I had not read much on the topic of abortion and honestly did not know about the hush hush abortions of this time period. But once it had been brought to my attention it made a lot of sense. I also felt that her style of writing was more engaging to the reader. I honestly had a hard time getting through the Rossinow reading. I am just not very interested in the topic and to me his writing seemed all over the place. It was hard for me to keep up with.

Week Three

tsdavis85 — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:31:58 +0000

Weiner’s book Historians in Trouble was an interesting read because it showed how mistakes in writing can be taken very seriously or not seem to have any affect on a person’s career. The two that appalled me the most were the cases made against Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Allen Weinstein. I cannot believe that Fox-Genovese got away with the types of harassment she put graduate students through. The fact that she made them do ridiculous and menial tasks for her just so that she would sign their dissertation is utterly insane. And what’s even worse is the fact that she essentially went unpunished for her transgressions. This case just goes to show how a person in power can so easily abuse that power. The case against Weinstein might be worse in regards to the field of Historiography. How can a writer be given such acclaim for a book that they cannot even back up with verifiable sources. He is unwilling to deposit his sources, like most writers do, into a library or an archive. He claimed he would do this, but never followed through. This should be a major red flag as to the validity of his work, yet there seems to be very little questioning of it. I can simply not fathom why that is the case. He should have been severely reprimanded if he was unwilling to put forth his sources, especially since various people who interviewed claimed that they were misquoted in the book. It is very difficult to grasp the fact that neither one of these respected historians could not have been punished for such faults. If it had been a young writer or a graduate student who had committed such acts then they would almost assuredly have been banned from doing further work in the field of historiography. Just because these individuals have gained prestige gives them no reason to act in the way that they did.

Week Two

tsdavis85 — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:22:56 +0000

Last discussion was interesting in regards to a few of the subjects. The technology aspect, especially corporations getting the same rights as a person gets was quite astounding. Them being aloud to push their own political agendas is ludicrous. Every election it feels like new things are always coming about that are constantly devaluing a person’s vote. It just seems too crooked for my taste. Another aspect of the technological revolution, the internet, is a double edged sword. It helps because it’s much easier to access archives and to find scholarly articles, but at the same time it also gives any person the ability to write anything that they want on any subject they want. As a historian, or history student, you just have to drudge through the junk and get to the legitimate sources though. Technology has definitely changed everything for better and for worse. The article by Cronon on what it takes to be a historian is a good assessment of what we will be faced with in the future. Objectivity and good sources are the most obvious keys in my view. Some bias is aloud, but it needs to be kept at a minimum. In the past all the winners got to write history anyway they saw fit. Although now, with all the technology at our fingertips, historians need to strive to be as objective as possible when writing history. Narrative form also needs to be minimized to a degree so that books, articles, editorials, etc. can be easier, and better, reads. But really, objectivity is the name of the game. This is why all the internet drudgery is so redundant because most of it is so extremely biased. I prefer to find books that can be used as good sources, but the internet is a tool that makes it so much easier for everyone to get the information they need. Although this can turn into problems with plagiarism, especially in elementary education. Also something Cronon wrote that I am a big fan of is the fact that in history you can pick a specific time frame, event, and place and constrain your research to this. When you can keep you focus this narrow it makes it much easier to write a great work on that subject. All in all the technological impact on history is going to continue to grow, and I’m quite interested to see where it goes in the future. But regardless of what happens, archives and primary sources will always be the basis for good history.

Week One

tsdavis85 — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:17:19 +0000

The banking system that Frieire describes seems to be a fairly accurate assessment of education in our country. Growing up you are taught what the teacher feels is important and there is no room for open discussion on any topic. But I do not feel that this is such a terrible idea for early education. This type of system builds a foundation for the student to continue to build on in the future. Without any prior knowledge, it is difficult to be able to have an intellectual discussion on a subject. When the student is younger it is a time when their brain is a like a sponge ready to absorb the knowledge that is fed to them. This time period, essentially the elementary school years, is a perfect time for this banking system to be used. But once the foundation is there then the educational approach should change. Once the student enters High School it is important to continue their intellectual growth and the best way to accomplish that is to use the system Kahn described, the seminar. Although I do not feel that this system would be as beneficial for all subjects. For instance, it would not work for Math or Science based subjects. Seminars would be best for Humanities, Arts, Psychology, History, etc. These are the type of subjects that can be open to interpretation. In class this week we were asked the difference between Science and History, and in my opinion the major difference is that History is more open to the student’s own interpretation of the material. Sure facts are facts but a person can interpret why a historical event occurred in anyway they see fit, as long as they can come up with some research to back up their claims. Research is also needed in Science, but to turn your theory into fact there are many hurdles to overcome. I just feel that it’s easier to make a claim in History and be able to adequately back it up. Now back to the subject of the transition from the banking system to the seminar. A major hurdle here is changing culture of the classroom and everything that the student is used to. In elementary education it seems that a student is considered smart if they can answer the teacher’s questions. But at the same time some students are too shy to speak up, or maybe think it would be socially unbecoming to look like “nerd”. This perception might make it harder to gain friends during this time period. And at this stage of childhood one of the most important things is being able to make, and keep, friends. Students need to be taught that intellectual ability should not be looked down on. If these problems can be overcome then the students can have a very enlightening High School career that sets them up well for higher education in college. Therefore I feel that we need to use both of these systems in our quest for improved education. As long as they are both used in the right way then the students could be better prepared for higher education and, eventually, the real world.

Hello world!

tsdavis85 — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:13:53 +0000

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!