Human beings write history and no matter who they are they cannot be fully objective. Trained historians try and bring as much objectivity as they can into their work but nobody can remove all amounts of bias from his or her work. (270) - How does Henry Kissinger define history? What is Howard Zinn’s approach to history, and how does his differ from the description of Kissinger’s type? Be Specific!
It is a defense of studying each historical period on its own terms, and not imposing one's own moral and social standards on figures and situations that existed with, perhaps, a different set of ethical and cultural concerns. Butterfield’s text described historians who project modern attitudes on to the past, pass moral judgments on historical figures, and regard history as significant only to the extent that it labored to create the modern world. Such judgments are viewed as problematic because they tempt historians not to understand the past on its own terms. Butterfield argues that historians should write aesthetically rather than polemically, exercising "imaginative sympathy" in appreciating the lost worlds of the dead rather than seeking, or expecting, the vindication of their own current positions (92). The "Whig interpretation," as Butterfield calls it, sees history as a struggle between a progression of good libertarian parties and evil reactionary forces, failing to do justice to history's true complexity.
Nonetheless, Manela felt that this was not the case because he said there was another significant incident that deserves to be looked at too. It was about the colonized countries that wanted to challenge the status quo. Similarly, he argued that historians before him looked at the anti-colonial struggles individually but he would now look at them as a whole because he said that it was all international anti-colonialism. In addition, he stated that historian before him did not centralized President Woodrow Wilson as a catalyst for anti-colonial nationalists across the world but he felt that Wilson was very vital in helping colonized people create the idea of self-determination. After WWI ended and world major empires like the Austo-Hungarian and the Ottoman empires collapsed, the U.S. emerged from WWI as more powerful, economically, militarily and politically.
Washington and Monroe believed that the United States should not become involved in European affairs because of the weakness of the US. They didn’t want to get involved in foreign affairs because they did not have the muscle to deal with war if war should come. They figured that it was better to not get involved than to get involved and work themselves into a corner. It is possible to follow the Monroe Doctrine today, if one is referring to political affairs, and not to trade. Just because its possible doesn’t mean we should or are doing it.
The Great Rhetra and the speculation behind when it first came into existence When examining the Great Rhetra to ascertain what it is and when it first came into existence, the issue we face as historians and scholars is determining whom we should believe in terms of both modern and ancient scholars. Determining what the Great Rhetra was and what its purpose was is fairly straightforward; however, the same cannot be said for determining its exact origin. Due to the conflicting accounts from ancient scholars, modern historians are left to decipher when they believe the Great Rhetra truly came into existence. Through the examination of ancient scholars and primary evidence, modern scholars are able to shed greater light on this document and aid in our examination of what the Great Rhetra is, and what the origins of this document were. In studying the Great Rhetra and when it came into existence, we must first understand what it was and look at who created it.
The Great Rhetra and the speculation behind when it first came into existence When examining the Great Rhetra to ascertain what it is and when it first came into existence, the issue we face as historians and scholars is determining whom we should believe in terms of both modern and ancient scholars. Determining what the Great Rhetra was and what its purpose was is fairly straightforward; however, the same cannot be said for determining its exact origin. Due to the conflicting accounts from ancient scholars, modern historians are left to decipher when they believe the Great Rhetra truly came into existence. Through the examination of ancient scholars and primary evidence, modern scholars are able to shed greater light on this document and aid in our examination of what the Great Rhetra is, and what the origins of this document were. In studying the Great Rhetra and when it came into existence, we must first understand what it was and look at who created it.
Bruce Mazlish and Steven Feierman are not happy historians. Both, in their articles “Comparing World to Global History” and “ The Dissoultion of World History”, present arguments regarding how the current form of recording history is no longer adequate to our ever more global community of today. The difference between the directions they take however is huge. Mazlish presents his arguments by defining the terms World and Global History then explaining why Global History, the new way, is the better way. Feierman similarly defines World History as the old way and Global as the new way but that is about as much as he explains them.
In very many sociological studies, social scientist attempt to explain certain aspect of family lives albeit culture, history, time and place. These studies outcome are important and contribute to family life in a big way, at the very least they attempt to provide some guidance on how families within different cultures do things. As important as the finding of these studies are they must not be looked upon as a “one size fits all” model. They do not always apply to every family and often time what make sense in one culture, would be totally absurd in another. In “Invisible Inequality” Author Lareau challenges a ten years old study by Kingston who argues that social class does not distinguish parents’ behavior or children’s lives.
"Wuthering Heights holds no relevance to a 21st Century reader" Discuss and Explain. It is safe to say that 'Wuthering Heights' can be considered as a classic, but should it only be kept as a classic, and not continued on the A-level syllabus because of its lack of relevance to 21st century society? Or can it be used as a powerful learning tool, and still hold various relevant aspects to 21st century readers. It is important to consider the themes in which 'Wuthering Heights' touch on throughout the book such as religion, social class and different viewpoints people of the 19th century would have. Society has changed since the 19th century, things that may have been acceptable and tolerated then, are not tolerated in the 21st century.
How is history created Midterm paper In order for history to be created by historians, a significant consequence must occur which is then recorded in one sense or another so that people in the future can know what came to past. However, much of the debate on viewing history, as the narrative approach of the historian, is whether their judgement distorts what history is, what historians act upon, and reflects upon the truth-seeking manner of the action.To be able to understand the birth of history, one must understand what the word history means.The word history can be defined in many senses. In one sense, history may mean a record of events, or even the events themselves. For example, when we think of the history of England, we tend to term kings and commoners the inventors of history, and possibly say that historians only record the history in which they create. In this sense, history is not the record but the thing being recorded.