History Question Plz (1 Viewer)

[fallenstar]

I think both the 'personal background' and 'historical context' are pretty much integrated with a discussion of the individual's life already.

In regards to personal background, I took that as Trotsky's early life, development of beliefs, early political work (eg school in Odessa, son of two Jewish farm owners, etc).

With historical context, I think that was especially integrated already. By discussing what the individual did within their life, you're also demonstrating knowledge about the time period in which the person lived. For example, if you say that Trotsky had a crucial role in the Civil War, then the fact that you've mentioned and described the existence of a civil war should constitute 'historical context'.

+1
That's what I did, but for Gorbachev.
Took 'personal background' as early life as well. Q didn't necessitate a trot-through of whole life.
For Gorbs I placed the events of his early life into the historical context of Stalinism and discussed how the events were affected by the oppressive regime.

 

[Zephyrio]

Remember guys that this is a ten mark question and that you shouldn't be penalised too heavily if you did not explicitly state "personal context" - this is history; it is highly probably that writing about the key events in your personality's lifetime, what you wrote demonstrated an understanding of your personality's historical context.

For Speer, I went through the major events of his life and for 'historical context' I just wrote what had been happening at the time (though not in great depth).
- Went to school during WWI. (Also talked about his parents, how smart Speer was, where he was born etc).
- Listened to Hitler's speech when he wasn't particularly interested in Weimar and its political troubles.
- Became an architect during Hitler's rule.
- Became Minister of Munitions during WWII
- Trialed at Nuremberg along with other leading Nazis
- Spent 20 years in Spandau.

I can understand if teachers said that you had to write about the major events in your personality's life, as you would have, in all likelihood, made passing comment to his historical context. The question itself was so vague that no time frame was attached to "historical context", so I could understand why people would go through the personality's life and then make brief mention to what had been happening at that time.

 

[cem]

Can I remind you that 'Historical Context' is one of the main headings of the syllabus?

That being said, based on the year they asked about 'Rise to Prominence' the markers didn't just take into account what the syllabus specified under that heading but did allow a degree of interpretation.

 

[Zephyrio]

Thanks cem.

Going by what you said before - if a person makes no attempt to answer the question, but does provide information about their personality's life, they would receive around 6, right? The marking is not too stringent, is it? If we've made quite a bit of reference to the personality's personal background, and then talked about historical context to a degree, do you think we'd be lookin at around 8 or 9/10?