|
|
|
Growing up as the son of a professor of American history, I picked up early
an appreciation of the long view, a degree of appreciation for the people
and the forces which have made us what we are.
This is an aspect of thinking which seldom gets exercised in computer
conferencing environment. The immediacy of telecommunications forces us to
breathless attention for the newest and latest information. Even ancient
history becomes late-breaking news, as with the recent fiasco over the
alleged assassination of Zachary Taylor.
But I think a lot of us still hunger for a broader understanding, for a link
with the past that formed our world whether we attend to it or not. This
shows up in almost silly ways at times: for example, M-Net's user community
clings to its traditions as tenaciously as the House of Lords. Anyone who
can dredge up nuggets of history that bear on the present is treated with
undue deference.
I hope the History conference will become a place where antiquarians and
historical analysts can mingle to mutual benefit. The past is a big place,
and we have a lot of things we can talk about. Just a few random thoughts:
o U.S. political history. Was the 1876 election stolen? What kind
of president would Sam Tilden have been? Who would you have voted
for in 1912? Was FDR a devil or a savior?
o The history of everyday life. It's been said that women spend as
much time (on the average) doing laundry today as before washing
machines were invented -- standards of cleanliness have risen and
kept laundry effort a constant. How much has technology really
changed housework?
o Economic history. What caused the Panic of 1893? What did we use
for money before Federal Reserve Notes were introduced in 1913?
In the past century, physicians rose from being merely middle-class
to the top of the socioeconomic scale -- how did they do that?
o Local history. Where did Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti get their names?
How does the University of Michigan get away with claiming it was
founded twenty years before Michigan was a state? Which downtown
Ann Arbor street used to be lined with livery stables?
o Architectural history (my own specialty). What is wrong with common
terms like "Victorian" and "pillars"? What was the connection between
octagonal houses and the Underground Railroad in the 1850's? What
style is Hill Auditorium? How does the change in glass technology
help to estimate the age of a house?
o World history (an especially weak area for me). How close to the
truth was the film "The Last Emporer"? Who were the most interesting
Popes? Has anyone seen Freud's old digs in Vienna?
o Historical research. How does one go about finding out ...
o Movies. I mentioned "Last Emporer" above. I have sometimes noticed
astonishing inaccuracies in cinematic portrayal of historic events
and periods. You too? What about especially well-done examples?
That's just a few ideas. However, there is one thing I'd rather we not spend
a whole lot of time on, because it could come to dominate the conference:
the intricate details of battles and military encounters. If you really want
to talk Pickett's Charge to death, please go start an Avalon Hill conference.
But in any case, welcome!
89 responses total.
Ah, an incentive to get causabon to learn to type! I'm particularly interested in 'ancient' (i.e. pre-Greek classical period) history, mostly Bibilical and Mesopotamian. I don't know scads about otyher periods of history, though my husband (John) is going back to get his master's and doctorate in British history, and is a fascinating source of knowledge.
I'm really looking forward to this! History is a favorite hobby of mine (if you can call reading books about the past a hobby). I'm interested in the history of ideas, East Asian history, economic history, the Dark and Middle ages, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Classical history, .....
If you do it for pleasure and don't make money off of it, it's a hobby. I'm looking forward to participating in this conference also.
Re 3. After all, it was your encouragement that led to this conference being started! <grin>
looks to me like Larry has big hopes for this conf...B-)
I'm glad he does. I'm a history major.
"History major" - isn't that something you become after flunking out of engineering?
No, that's what engineering majors take when they realize that they DO want to have lives someday. (sorry, I just resent the implication that liberal arts majors are a default, rather than a choice--I skipped Inteflex for Mythology.)
I'm not knocking liberal arts - it's just that everyone I knew as an undergrad that decided to bail out of engin ended up as a history major.
On the other hand, I know liberal arts undergrads who decided to get their engineering training in graduate school. I think that order works very well.
One might not like engineering after seeing the way it works. It is not necessarily a 'flunking' effect. I studied engineering, completed my studies, got my degree, worked at high tech companies. I still don't like the human factor in the engineering field, that is the engineers' attitude. May be it is the lacking human approach, and clumsiness in human relations. I am not saying I changed it for better, after all, I studied engineering after high school. That shapes you somewhat.
My history major is a stepping stone.
Everything is a stepping stone, even an engineering degree. What are you planning to step onto next?
My specialties are Art History and Music history (I have a BA in the former, and am embarking on a masters degree program in the latter). I find it interesting to learn about the history of civilization *through* the history of the arts of mankind. I'm also very interested in learning about the links between art, music, architecture, literature, and t he social history of specific times and peoples. Oh, and speaking of economic history, did the Panic of 1893 have something to do with the government dropping the silver standard? I've read some about the history of Colorado silver-mining communities, and would love to know more.
The more I think about what I'm going to do when I go back to scool, the more I want to dive right into Greek and Latin so I can get into a program of Classical Studies someday.
I was never, nor will I ever be, a history major.
'Tis a pity.
It *is* fun. What you have to do, is get over the horrid presentation that was pummled into you in school. Rare is the school that does anything other than turning people off history, from what I've been visited.
I was lucky, my first year in college, to take a course in ancient Greek history that breezed over the points of agreement, and spent most of its time considering the current academic controversies about the period. I've been interested ever since, 'though my sense of Greek history after the Peloponnesian War is a bit confused. Not enough controversies, I guess.
"Very few things happen at the right time and the rest do not
happen at all. The concientious historian will correct these
defects."
On the high-tech vs. liberal-arts question, my experience runs just counter to what some of you expressed - in a way. A few years back it seemed that half the people I knew were music (many), philosophy, or English majors/grad students who'd become computer jockeys of one sort or another. The common reason was the job market. (Many had gotten entry-level computer jobs to support their schooling & found it impractical to switch after schooling was over.)
Maybe I missed a point somewhere, but what kinds of work can you find with a degree in History? I *love* history, but don't know where to apply it. I'm currently a computer programmer, which is cool, but my 2nd choice is history stuff. What's up?
The skills developed by the more technical academic disciplines (e.g., history) are quite useful in many other fields. Programming is indeed well- suited; the ability to systematically view a problem and to weigh conflicting considerations clearly applies. (In my opinion, also, a historian who's not rigorous isn't much of a historian, and this also is a key in programming.) There are many other fields of which this could be said. But as far as the kind of qualifications that employers like to see on your resume ... you can go to grad school (to prepare to teach, or to postpone the issue); or you can look for something in politics or a think tank or something like that, as someone's research assistant. (RA to a writer of historical fiction? I doubt it; I suspect they started as frustrated historians themselves. But add "write historical novels".) I can't think of much else off hand. Unless academic history (or philosophy or whatever) - which translates as teaching with your own research added as well - is a real possibility, you may as well admit that you're self-indulgently taking this stuff because you LIKE it, maybe because you hope it will make you a more well-rounded person. That's fine, although it's an expensive hobby with tuition where it is. No doubt this is socially useful, and in a truly enlightened culture we'd all be philosopher-kings at $1.2M per year ... although Plato's view of the philosopher-king didn't involve any personal luxury, rather the opposite if anything.
Hate to rain on your parade, but the only person I know doing anything with history is getting his PhD. And facing imminent unemployment because his thesis topic isn't particularly trendy (the War of the Roses, peasant rebellion during). It makes a much better avocation than a vocation.
Did I say there were huge openings in any of them? If you can afford to take it because you enjoy it, IMHO it's likely to improve the world in a small way, but it's an expensive way to have fun.
Too bad we're not supposed to talk about battle and military encounters. Lately I've been reading a lot about Custer. Does anyone know if there's anything worth seeing in that regard in Monroe, MI?
There's a statue.
Very Interesting.
Sorry to change the subject, but has anyone recently seen "Forrest Gump"? If so, how do you all feel about the way it portrayed the events he fairly accurate, or did Robert Zemeckis really screw up? Just curious." ."
Accurate in terms of what, the book?
There are apparently ( idon't know for sure, as I'm not into dumb
but 'cute' storylines like FG) a lot of differences between the book & the mov
movie -- even his IQ! In the book it is 70, & the movie it is apparently 75.
This is per a brief piece in last week's USN&WR.
Well, actually I meant in terms of historical accuracy, not in relation to the book. You know, like the Vietnam sequence, for example.
Well, Forrest *wasn't* present for all those newscast sequences of former presidents.....(just in case anyone was fooled?).
OK, forget I asked. No one one seems to have understood what I meant. Frankly, I don't think I know what I was really getting at, either.
That probably explains it.
Explains what?
(I think I know what spartan was trying to get at! I do! I do!) (I think he was asking if the events that were depicted in Forrest Gump could have played out the way the movie suggests!) (beam)
I think I saw on TV the other day that Nixon was out of the country on the night of the Watergate break-in, whereas in the movie he wasn't.
Yeah, I think carson's got it.
| Last 40 Responses and Response Form. |
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss