As we have discussed the promise and the problems of historical biography, both in terms of the Reformation and in light of larger interpretive issues surrounding the AP exam, offer your own thoughts on the discussion in the comments section.
Here are the questions to consider: How has discussion the last several days challenged your understanding of the past and how historians and students analyze the past? What new questions in your own mind did the discussion spark? What questions remain? How effective are the "what if" questions in analyzing a person and/or time period? Why or why not? Use examples of historical persons, periods, and/or events as you answer your questions. They don't necessarily have to be from European history. (NOTE: I'd prefer to you sign up for a blogger account before posting. If not, and if you post as anonymous then put your name at the beginning of your comments.)
Finally, click here and here to find helpful guides to answering DBQ questions. Read them, bring your own copies to class, and be prepared to discuss tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
The discussions in class have given me a better understanding of historical biography. I had not realized that in order to truly understand a historical figure one must know all the different opinions about him/her because one view point will not provide enough informatioin to fully comprehend the person. By reading various critiques, one is able to see the historical figure from a 360 degree view. Thus, allowing the reader to interpret his or her own opinion. For example, the Enlgish writer Jane Austen has been proclaimed one of England's most influential and brillant writers. However, every book written about her is based on different interpretations of her works and her life. Therefore, by just reading one source the view point may be limited and/or one-sided. In order to gain a full and unbias perspective, it is necassary to read many biographies written about her life. To gain further understanding of Austen's life, primary documents should also be evaluated.
Over the past few days, I've realized how diverse the understanding of historical truth really is. Martin Luther, a figure commonly grouped with only a certain sect of a certain religion was, in actuality, far more complex in his words and actions. Where one historian comments on his theology, one focuses on his doubt, another on his public exploits. Along with varied interpretations of history, mediums also affect the portrayal of history, as art impacts how a figure is described or depicted. As far as questions go, I consider the "what if" question of history to be interesting, but ultimately useless. Maybe history is inevitable, maybe it isn't, and I doubt we will ever know. We're having the same discussions people had thousands of years ago. As Daniel Tyler said, "How can something that has already occured be inevitable or not". In other words, what if Luther had accidentally hit his thumb while nailing in his parchment? What if it was raining that day and the ink smeared? What if he had tripped over his sandals and fallen, thus giving up? Inevitably, we will never know.
Personally, the recent class discussions have made me realize just how linear and exact history is. Everything that has happened in the past seems to be entirely essential to the creation of the present. The questions such as "what if..." and the inevitability of certain events - in my mind - indirectly take away from the importance of what actually did happen. History itself is inevitable. The reformation was inevitable because of several different events, theologians, and written works. It was inevitable because of all that had happened in history up to that point. It is just as inevitable as what will happen tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. Though it is impossible to know what will happen tomorrow (or the day after tomorrow), it will be possible to know why it happened, why it was inevitable. So my answer to the question "is history inevitable?" is simply: it must be, for history is the study of why things happened, why events ARE inevitable. In regards to the required example, I feel that a historical idea is more relevant than an event or person, so I will use some of the ideas from Aristotle's Metaphysics, specifically his ideas of movement and nature. Aristotle saw all of nature, history, and interaction as part of an eternal chain reaction of sorts - effects causing more effects that go on to cause even more effects and causes and so forth. Initially, he theorizes, the "unmoved mover" - a perfect, beautiful, and perfection contemplating force (in other words, God) - started this chain reaction of events that is existence. To me, this theory makes alot of sense. It makes me believe in the importance of each occurrence in history because each occurrence is, theoretically, a direct result of Perfection’s movement.
Anyways, I got a little carried away. But in conclusion, I personally have several problems with the what if questions because what if is not what did happen. And what did happen is Perfection.
In light of our recent class discussions i have changed my theories on biography and historical context. I never really realized the great bias and personal views an author or portrayer places in works on historical figures. it has changed my opinion of several authors and their subjects in that what they write about may not be entirely true. i need to formulate my own ideas about a historical figure not just rely on the ideas of authors who could be prejudice to their subjects.
Although "what if" questions are extremely far fetched and meaningless at times i think they are important when looking at history in different lights. thinking about what if something happened to martin Luther and he was not able to post his 95 theses thatsparked a reformation or of Hitler's mom had had an abortion like rumors say she contemplated. i do believe that the reformation as most of history was and is inevitable however it is important to look at what could have happened to our history if important historical figures had not completed the tasks that made them famous. I too believe that history is linear and inevitable. however, possibly to contradict myself, i also believe that history goes in a spiral, repeating certain ideas and beliefs that have been forgotten or neglected over the course of history.
The discussions in class have helped me better understand how historians and students should analyze the past. Instead of just acquiring information from one source, multiple sources and viewpoints should be studied. The Abraham Lincoln example was helpful in demonstrating how an abundance of biographies can be written about the same subject. For example, one could study Lincoln's assassination, presidency, war, home life, faith, or childhood. Although they are all written about Lincoln, each biography can have different viewpoints and claims. I do not believe that the "what if" questions are helpful in analyzing a person or time period. Although it can be amusing to wonder about what could have been, studying hypothetical scenarios is not useful. I believe it is better to study primary sources when trying to understand a period or person better.
Considering the past few days of discussion, I feel as though my former definition of truth is completely inaccurate. I used to define truth as reality. Now, instead, truth is one's perception of reality, of history. No one's truth is the same as the next man's. Seeing as we are in the present and history is past, we will never have the chance to know the reality of certain events. The best we can do is study and analyze many 'truths' and come to our conclusion or version of the truth. To all, the unanswerable question, "What is the reality; what really happened here?" remains. By using "what if" questions and studying the untruths, a clearer picture of reality is portrayed. To use these questions is to open up new possiblities of what did occur, by eliminating what did not and why it did not. For example, Lenin, a commonly categorized as some sort of 'evil,' actually wished for Russia to transform into its own Shangri-La, a sort of Utopia. And, yes, his measures were very extreme and somewhat skewed, but he was not intending to go and turn Russia into an oppressive mega-government. His discipline is still considered astounding. In studying Lenin, an entirely new 'truth' of the Russian Revolution and of the Communist Party is revealed.
Discussion over the last several days has definitely challenged my understanding of how historians and students view the past. The class discussion has showed me the inevitable bias that exists in the presentation of historical fact; thus, one must ask himself from what vantage point a historian is speaking from before truly understanding the purpose of his message. How to assess and make use of this bias remains an issue to be dealt with separately with each new source, but the discussion has clearly shown me a new side history that presents very little objectivity in the scope of each historian. As a result, to truly understand history, one must analyze a number of view points for each historical occurrence and weigh all the bias before drawing any conclusions regarding this event. With a better understanding of each side of a situation, one can better understand the intentions of each historian and character in history. "What if" questions along with other methods of hypothesis and conjecture prove helpful in aiding this process of bias analysis, and though often frivolous, have shown through class analysis of figures such as Abraham Lincoln and events such as 9/11 to often be quite necessary.
I think the discussion these past few days has simply reiterated our thoughts on bias in biographies. However, I do believe that these discussions have helped us to identify the reasons for bias and have allowed us to think critically and examine all aspects of an author's point of view. Personally, I've come to the conclusion that biographies are unreliable sources when dealing with history, and that trying to read each and every biography to disspell bias is impossible. Therefore, biographies shoud just be read to give one an overall outline and generalization of a person. Watching the two films on Martin Luther, and reading Waibel's book, has not given me a clear view of Luther but a fairly holistic one. Futhermore, I believe that, yes, history is inevitable but only to the extent that the linear path it takes is not transfigured or transposed. In other words, these "what if" questions mean nothing. They're useless to the extent that you could make one up for any and every situation possible. History is based on actions and reactions but not "what if" questions. There's simply no concrete proof behind them. Time would be better spent focusing on the "why", accumulating all possible factors of a person's actions. If Luther considered himself a Protestant, then why? If not, then why? Why was there 95 theses and not 100. Sadly, knowledge here can only be based on personal conjectures from as many sources as possible through as many "why" questions as possible.
Meagan Smith- The discussion over the past several days has made me understand the importance of historical biographies. I always knew that historical biographies were good sources of information; however, I never considered the fact that each biography has its own point of view and bias. I have realized just how important it is for me to make my own opinions about historical figures. In order to get a better picture of a historical figures one needs to study several different biographies. If every biography has bias then how can we know which is the more exact in its definition? I personally do not like “what if” questions; they take the importance away from what actually did happen in history. I feel that when you make up a “what if” question then you are inventing history. You can’t compare fact to fiction. History needs to be judged by itself, not by “what if” questions. History can be better understood through the reading of primary documents, a source that it is true. For example, Thomas Jefferson, a founding father, is considered by some people to have plagiarized the Declaration of Independence from John Locke’s work while others say there was no such thing as plagiarism at the time; therefore, Jefferson just held common beliefs that were similar to John Locke’s. In order for one to make an opinion on this topic, biographies and primary documents will have to be read and deciphered. Each biography will have some degree of difference; accordingly, it is important for the reader to make his own opinions.
The class discussions held over the last few days have allowed me to see the potential fallibility present in the historical bigography genre, and the danger of assumings that any one particular account as absolute truth. As a reult of the countless mediums such as art, literature, and music capable of influencing and skewing one's perception of historical occurences, it is essential that an individual weigh all possible accounts and assess numerous historical opinions in order to help weed out personal bias and belief before drawing his own conclusions based solely on definitive fact. We demonstrated this idea in our discussion of Abraham Lincoln when we demonstrated that although there exist thousands of biographies on him in circulation, each one contains a different perspective and different personal motive. Furthermore, I personally believe that the use of "what if?" questions, while often entertaining and thought provoking, prove ultimately ineffective and useless in discussing past events. Since there is so much that cannot be known or assumed about the nature of reality or occurences in existence, I agree with David Velez's claim that more information can be garnered and more progress witnessed if we instead focus on the "why" behind history. After all, history should be used as a tool to allow us to observe and correct mistakes made in the past so humanity can grow and evolve; presupposing what could have happened is nothing more than an excercise of the imagination. -Parker Jensen
The discussion the last several days has allowed me to see how great a challenge it is to record history without revealing or inflicting bias on your records. Every situation that you encountered in your life up to the moment you record the history of another person or an event affects how you see that thing. No one can completely remove the lenses through which he sees the world. The what if questions help us get a more rounded view of a historical figure or event. We can see "what if a historical biography of Hitler is written by a Jewish person?" or "what if the biography of Hitler is written by a present day Nazi?" Those differences would especially affect how they view the infamous figure. -caroline dinges
Before examining Paul Waibel's representation of Luther, I had never considered the author's background, circumstances, and bias as significantly infuential factors in the portrayal of a historical figure. However, in light of the discussion this week, I agree with Kaylin's assessment that one achieves an accurate perspective only after researching from multiple points of view. Despite one's best efforts to remain neutral, personal experience will always contribute to the perspective from which a historical figure is analyzed. Thus, we should carefully scrutinize the author's motives and background before accepting his work as undeniable truth.
On another note,I would also like to mention that I have no bias. And if you don't believe me, just ask me anything about Peru. I simply state the facts; it's not my fault the country is perfect.
Keen comments, helpful observations, and thoughtful responses. To those who remain convinced history is linear and inevitable--please respond with evidence and cite other examples. If history is inevitable, then what role do human beings play in the course of the past? Isn't the creation of history all about contingencies, indeed choices made by historical actors?
Perhaps you mean to describe cause and effect in history? Please clarify.
Despite attempts to be "objective" in reconstructing the past, all reconstructions will be influenced by one's background, gender, age, race, ethnicity, class, religion, etc. Perhaps the way forward is to reveal such biases so readers can know the angles from where writers come?
Finally, it is clear to me that the "what if" question is most unpopular with all of you, but I maintain my position that it is at the very least a helpful pedagogical device that demands familiarity with the larger context of whatever historical moment one is studying.
These are all fantastic ideas and thoughts; I particularly enjoyed the entry on Lincoln and how you could approach his life from various angles. I think of biographies somewhat like a story about a person from the perspective of one of their friends (or enemies). While everyone would say the same thing about their friend (has brown hair; loves to play basketball), they might emphasize different traits (someone who is bad at basketball might say the individual is a great basketball player, while Michael Jordan probably wouldn't say the same thing). Conflicting viewpoints may not be wrong. They may just be different perspectives. More biographies about a person may just give us more perspectives and greater understanding. Just my two cents. Have a great class - you all have a wonderful teacher. Best, Edward J. Blum
I agree with Mr. Blum that conflicting viewpoints may not be wrong. At first I believed that biographies should be objective, but perhaps biographies should be written with varying viewpoints. This could allow us to see someone from every angle and formulate our own opinions about him or her. It is important to be able to study someone and formulate an opinion and stance on them. This is especially true in the presidential campaigns. To be educated voters, we must learn as much as we can about the candidates and make a decision. Perhaps by reading about candidates from different points of view, we can better understand the candidates. Okay, I’m done. Goodnight!
I agree with Mr. Blum and Mr. Sinitiere. As we've studied this idea of historical bias, I've also come to realize that bias is not only inevitable but also more interesting. Bias moves the idea of biography away from monotonous objectivity and presents an argument or a conflict. Without this debate or varying viewpoint on a person, little analysis would take place and there would exist less interest in historical figures, so bias and conflicting viewpoints are necessary as much as they are inevitable. Just as Mr. Blum said, a biography is more interesting when viewed as a story, and without an opinion or an angle, the story is pretty boring.
I definitely agree with Blum’s opinion. He makes an interesting point when he says the biographer could be an enemy or a friend. How can one have a full understanding of a historical figure, if only one biography is read based on a single viewpoint? For example, if one reads a biography of George Bush written by two democratic authors, then the viewpoints expressed would be very different compared to a biography written by two Republican authors. In order to have a complete understanding of a person’s character, one must study multiple biographical sources, with views from opposing sides. Aside from historical facts, different biographical opinions can contribute to a broader perspective of a person, and further enhance one’s understanding of that person.
i see mr. blum's point about having a biographer be a friend or an enemy; however, i think that assessment is to extreme. the world cannot just be divided into friends and enemies, there are thousands of classifications for people in relation to another person. i think all biography is biased (because we as a people are not perfect) in someway therefore we must look at it from a viewpoint because to look at it straight as pure factual truth would be fallacy and naive.
Helpful and interesting thoughts from those who responded. For purposes of clarification (and Ed, chime in here), I'm not sure Prof. Blum meant to limit the authorial angle in a biography to either friend or enemy. Just two choices among many others. And as we discussed in class yesterday, someone who writes about their enemy can still point out positive things, while writing about one's friend or someone with whom the author is fascinated does not rule out discussing shortcomings. Both are no doubt difficult to do. (Perhaps Ed may want to chime in here as this relates to the Du Bois biography; or check out my interview with Ed over at baldblogger.)
As many of you suggest, an author's angle on a particular historical figure (when either explicitly revealed or masterfully concealed) makes the entire project much more interesting, and potentially more controversial.
And here's a question for everyone: all of the posts (even mine) seem to suggest that analysis from multiple angles will reveal the complete person, the entire figure. Is this really possible as we seek to historically reconstruct someone's life? Why or why not?
Mr. Blum, thank you so much for your comments. I agree with your thoughts on the relationship between biographer and subject, but I feel these two are more inclined to be friends than to be enemies. The attention given to this subject - I feel - creates a relationship that is interestingly personal.
I agree wholeheartedly with Xeris's point about there being many, many, many angles (and not just friends and enemies). Most biographies probably are written by those who 'like' or form a relationship with their subject and then tend to favor them. What becomes interesting then is we see what the author likes and feels passionately about. So, for instance, I just wrote a religious biography of W. E. B. Du Bois - the famous African American intellectual and activist - because I feel passionately about issues of religion and race in the United States. There is very little in the book about Du Bois's sexuality, because that topic isn't very interesting to me. So, does this mean that all biographies are skewed or slanted and merely tell us more about the author than the subject? I don't think so - and here is why: there is still evidence! The reader can judge the evidence - are the quotes in context; is that what the subject really meant? did the subject say or do other things that contradict the assessment of the biographer? So we do have evidence from which we can argue. So - was Du Bois religious? This is an important historical question: one biographer (David Lewis) says no. I say yes. You can read each biography and can read some from Du Bois and judge for yourselves. Some depictions may be 'more right' than others.
Unfair records of the past are sometimes the result of historians' bias, of their preferring one account over others because it accords with their interests. This makes sense because if an event or historical figure interests you, you will focus more on that aspect of a person. It is useful to distinguish history that is misleading by accident from that which is the result of personal bias; and to distinguish personal bias from bias that is a result of the culture someone grew up in and general cultural relativity.
Just a thought, karolyn.
I think that even though it is up to the reader to judge the evidence it is still the responsibility of the biographer to provide an unbiased biography. Because, let's face it, some people just aren't as smart as others or just plain ignorant and will believe whatever they read, hear, or see. Sure, an enemy can provide positive aspects and a friend can provide negative aspects, but they don't do these things for no reason at all. They have an agenda too, otherwise they wouldn't be called friends or enemies of the person. Perhaps it's showing a growth of character or overcoming an obstacle. Either way, such bias distorts biographies. There's just too many angles, agendas, motives, opinions, bias, and other things that confuse and influence readers.
Humbled as I am to be speaking with someone with the reputation and writings of Professor Blum, I feel my opinion is valuable in this argument, as is my inevitable bias on the subject. As David Mccullough states, historical biography is rooted in the idea that we as humans, being creatures with very specific capacities and limitations, can somehow gain insight into the present through looking at the past. Our intrisic constraints are influences upon not only the hand which pens the account, but the eyes which contemplate what is written. It is simply a fact of reality that, to quote Woody Allen, "objectivity is subjective". Once codified, truth is skewed and strectched and left open to all sorts of interpretation. We are simply unable to write anything which is completely accurate or true due to the elasticity and distance between that which is viewed and the viewer. And although there may be in some ideal world the possibility...the possibility of some verfiable historical account I don't see even the slightest indication that intellectual argument will someone bridge the small and insurmountable gap between the written word and reader's mind. Ultimately, it seems the only easy lesson which history teaches is that the past teaches no easy lessons.
I think reconstructing the past of a historical figure is a possible task; however, biographies can be misleading if it holds too much of a bias opinion. The author’s job is to present the reader with evidence and let the reader decide his or her own opinion. No where in the biography is the author supposed to slide in his personal point of view. I say this but no matter how much the author censors his perspective there will still be some trace of bias opinion, because after all a biography is a story being told. That is why it is important to read several diverse biographies because each one gives a different perspective of the person’s life. For example, one biographer may focus on the achievements where as another biographer may focus on the failures. Although they are very different accounts of one person’s life, the two biographies when joined give a fuller understanding to the life of the historical figure.
I agree with Mr. Blum that in order to truly understand a historical figure it is necessary for a person to read several different biographies. I believe that analyzing a historical figure from multiple angles will give better insight into that person’s life. The more a person reads about the historical figure the more information he has to draw a logical conclusion on this topic. Analysis from multiple angles allows a more complete view of a person; therefore, when reconstructing a person’s past the more information the better. The extra information from studying from multiple angles might help a person understand the historical figure better. -Meagan Smith
Mr. Blum- thank you so much for your valuable input! It's so interesting to hear an interpretation of historical biogrpahical bias from one who writes historical biographies. Very refreshing to know that there is no ignorance on behalf of the writers to their own bias.
Mr. Sinitiere- I believe you made a very valid point that while reading multiple sources allows the reader to see a subject more objectively, it's just not plausible that one will take the oppurtunity to do so. Don't get me wrong- I believe that when you are studying a specific person in depth, it is mandatory to observe from every angle accessible. But the average person, reading simply out of curiousity, will not take the time to hunt down multiple bios and analyze them to correctly determine bias.
Post a Comment