help! my teacher doesn't teach -_- (1 Viewer)

[echotango]

For the half of the course about studying history and historians (not the case study part), can anyone explain to me what the essence of studying historians is in the second part of the course?
I mean what kind of questions are they likely to ask and how should one approach them? Do I pick a couple of historians and study them in detail? Or study a lot of historians?

Thanks for your help.

 

[Babylon]

My advice for this section would be definetely to study purpose and perspective for each Historian you have chosen. Last years question stuffed me up, since I had never expected they would actually ask me for my opinion about History..... I mean like who cares what I think anyway, right! hehehe But seriously be ready for something like that.

Also try to compare and contrast the historians... Don't forget to show how the influential factors such as education, religion, and period from which the historian was writting from etc, contributed to there understanding and approach towards history..

Criticise the historians where possible, like bias, credibility, accuracy etc.

Have in depth knowledge of atleast 3 historians... Thats my advice.

Good Luck in Trials

 

[echotango]

Thanks for the reply...what historians should I be looking at?

Email me: it_is_my_destiny_2003@hotmail.com

 

[Generator]

Select relevant historians, ie people who have a passage in the source book. But it's also good to have a broad range. I think that I used Geyl, a feminist and a medieval French guy, though they were just three of the six? that I studied for the exam...

There's a book, something along the lines of '50 historians', which has the details on... 50 historians. It would be useful, if your library happens to have it.

 

[malayz_angel]

Try to pick historians from different time periods (e.g.ancient, medieval...)

 

[echotango]

Wait, so what you are all saying is that
1) I have to pick at least 3+ historians
2) I have to know about them in detail (in terms of what? their writing?)
3) I should be able to analyse them/criticise their views according to context? (views on "history" or their general views presented in their writing?)

Thanks

 

[Babylon]

You might wanna consider what influenced their way of writing..

Example

Von Ranke

Von Ranke wanted to show how things actually happened, seeking to refine his work with rigid objectivity to present history as it was.

However Von Ranke has often been criticised for overstating the possibility of objectivity, and that his own objectivity can be called into question, since he wrote from a conservative, pro-Prussian, Lutheran view point.

 

[Generator]

ie he was biased against bias.

 

[MicK_eT]

also look at their methods in terms of context... influences and so forth ... what was the cool thing at the time... stuff like that

 

[!meeee!]

remember though, sometimes the question can be quite specific. eg. the way the historians view on truth in history differ or it can also be very broad so be prepared for both

 

[malayz_angel]

Here's some of the questions that I used when summarising my historians:

purpose/value of history/background info
methodology in historical approach
importance to historical studies of the historian
criticisms of approach