hi guys is everyone writing set essays or is it 'we'll see what we get?' (1 Viewer)

[lazybum]

for my section 1, my essay is basically set, i'm writing about historians herodutus, thucy, bede, gibbon maybe, ranke, richard evans,
and basically discussing that each historian has their own history , therefore they all are subjective, but humans CAN strive for objectivity
peter gayle and evans quotes are really good

for kennedy, i'm doing man and myth / public private man (i do believe there's hardly a difference) and cuban missile crisis ( i've forgotten the particulars. )
i've not even studied indochina, or that stuff with russia!!!!!!

is that what everyone else is doing?

 

[SmokedSalmon]

Section 1: I'm not memorising a planned essay if that is what you are implying. I just understand the variety of historians (6 of them) and memorise their quotes... and then use whatever they have to say to suit the question or relate to the source in the exam.

Section 2: I'm doing JFK as well. I'm doing man against myth and Kennedy's handeling of Cuba (Bay of Pigs, Operation Mongoose and Cuban Missile Crisis). Yeah I ain't even touching indochina or the rest. pfft

 

[gloria*]

dude, i was planning on working an agenda out on tuesday night / wednesday morning.

case-study-wise, so far my planned essay exists of:

"Napoleon was apparently a very Short man, yet historians debate the EXACT nature of his height. the perceptions and contexts of different historians influences their reactions towards the concept of height and how this affected Napoleon personally; Geiyl, for instance, wrote that subjectivity meant that Napoleon had perhaps no height at all, and Foucault would agree, contesting that height is a social construction designed to control the power structures of history."

 

[Bolkonski]

heres some food for thought.

words create reality and meaning. For example, we use the word chair, to both reflect the object we see, and also to create meaning for that object we see. 4 legs. a back. a seat. therefore, because what we see is real, than everyone's perspective is real. Therefore, to each person there is absolute truth and also to every person, each truth is just as valid as every others. Just because I only see 3 legs of the chair from where I stand dosnt mean there is more from another point of view. (but it also means that to me there is only 3 legs.)

this isnt post modernism and it isnt modernism either.
Keith Jenkins and Keith Windschuttle explore this (i think)... and I have come to call it revisionist post modernism... its where historians use post modernism with its ability to point out the untruths in arguments, to create a more solid objective history. A entirely true historical account, impossible, but through this it is claimed that a tighter, more objective accounts are possible by using their weapon against themselves.

Do you guys think this is plausible.. I have quotes etc from the historians who put this forward..

 

[SmokedSalmon]

Hey Bolkonski I may sound like a dumbass but this is for section 2 of the exam right? If it is then what you have sounds right on track. Meh same for section 1 anyways. I have not studied those 2 historians but to me its plausible. Call up the advice line for reassurance tho

 

[Bolkonski]

oh and by the way I was talking about section 1... my mistake..

I do Women convicts in NSW for section 2...

 

[gloria*]

really? how obscure.

 

[Bolkonski]

my sarcasmometer is playing up? is that really obscure is it?

ohwell, twas interesting to do... theories about how NSW was initially built off convict prostitution... e.g. one of the works was called Damned Whores.

by the way Im not gonna ring up the advice line.... I had enough trouble trying to figure things out with my teacher...

 

[lazybum]

you guys are mad
(not that we should expect dif from three and a half weeks of theis CRAP


so i shouldn't do a set essay is that what ur implying?

then ii\lljjust have to study my historians


i ithought kknew emm but just went over em and i iDONT
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

[SmokedSalmon]

Reading up on the markers of 2001 and 2002 comments they claim that memorising a set essay will not guarantee you the best marks. Because some historians may not fit well with the question or source given. So people just study a variety of historians from past and present and you'll be fine.

Originally posted by lazybum
i ithought kknew emm but just went over em and i iDONT
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

lol calm down. You have a couple of days to learn some historians. It won't be THAT hard. Look at past paper answers too... I got my majority of notes for Ranke out of them

 

[amyb]

Hey, i do women convicts too! FINALLY, some other school does it as well...ahh....
How are you going? I think it's a load of shit and would have preferred to have done the Sung period case study...but oh well

 

[Alli]

yeh i do female convicts 2, what schools r u from?
its alright, u just have to regurgitate stuff, like its not political ro antyhying so there arent really any radical debates..

 

[MiuMiu]

Nope, I know what Im going to write about, but I simply cant be bothered pre-writing the essay, and it usually leads to much confusion anywayz trying to remember something prepared rather than analysing and writing your essay as you go along.