Steffany > Recent Status Updates

on this page I really enjoyed the quote "all people are the historians of their own lives" because when you think about it they really are. This is seen through oral histories, each memory means something, it helps add to the narrative.

I like how on this page it discusses that each person's individuals research starts with the interest, thus leading to subjectivity. This is seen in other areas of study not just history which is what I think is the most important factor. All fields have subjectivity.

here the page says: "subjectivity taints all history" this quote is important to acknowledge because everything in history holds biases because of the nature of humans. It is important to know what biases each book or work holds so you can understand the perspective of the piece.

here the page says: "one man's truth is another woman's falsity" I think this quote has a lot of insight into what history is. Everything is perspective and people see events completely different.

here the page discusses the winning over by the progressive thinking. "Progress came from material advances" this quote puts it into perspective by saying it moved history forward via materials.

on this page it discusses the coining of the term "positivism". Where Comte discusses that events could be explained by scientific laws, connecting history with sciences like biklogy and chemistry

The chapter discusses plagiarism. This reminds me a lot of Dr. Clark's lecture that she gives for every single one of her classes. It is extremely helpful and kind of scary. But most definitely necessary.

This whole part of the book discusses research papers, and how to form a good research question. I am writing a research paper for a conference and I am still deciding which angle to take. Rampolla provides some sorts of direction with the deciding factor on how to choose.

Do not use passive voice when writing a paper, the reasoning behind this--"makes the writer sound hesitant". I find this helpful, writing in passive voice is a common occurence for me unfortunately having this reasoning layed out for me definitely makes it easier to understand the purpose of not using it.

Rampolla brings in the idea of not using gender biased words, this makes me extremely happy. In speech and debate we try to always avoid using these kinds of words to make sure no one feels left out.

'Do not open on a global statement'-- this statement made really opens my eyes when looking at how to write. Introductions are one of the key factors in a papers overall effectiveness. Totally going to use this.

It discusses how to write a movie review. This would have been extremely helpful my freshmen year, I really sucked at those, this book clearly outlines what works in this kind of paper, and what is necessary to make the paper successful.

On this page it is discussed that a historians affiliation can affect their research. How interesting. It is to my understanding that as a historian the job is to be as unbiased as possible, but because of this affiliation historians seek out certain documents that confirm their thoughts that much up with what they want. This making their interpretation almost skewed in a way... thougths??

On this page it discusses critiques and book reviews. I for one have always struggled with these because of what Rampolla talks about; assessing weaknesses and strengths. I have always found this hard because I didn't think I could talk about it since I wasn't qualified it the purpose behind these is to be able to analyze.

Towards the end of this page the author mentions with the use of primary and secondary sources it allows for the historian to provide a unique point of view from multiple sources. In my opinion I think this skill is so important to have especially when dealing with research because one must gain an understanding of it as a whole and the only way to do that is by multiple perspectives.

Rampolla uses a word I was not familiar with entirely for history uses: synthesis. The idea is to do all other steps that the book discusses and then create your own perspective. I will have to do this on my research, it is an extemely daunting task. Hopefully I can gain this skill soon.

"On this page the book discusses the idea of examing where the evidence came from. Who had it, where was it.. etc.. this is an extemely important role when trying to understand something from history, one must understand its context.

"historians goal is not to collect facts about the past but rather insight". This statement was spot on for me when looking at what history is. History is never static and always changing. Therefore with each passing time the interpretation or insights are different delving into the idea that in history most things are not fact.

On this page it discusses critiques and book reviews. I for one have always struggled with these because of what Rampolla talks about; assessing weaknesses and strengths. I have always found this hard because I didn't think I could talk about it since I wasn't qualified it the purpose behind these is to be able to analyze.

Towards the end of this page the author mentions with the use of primary and secondary sources it allows for the historian to provide a unique point of view from multiple sources. In my opinion I think this skill is so important to have especially when dealing with research because one must gain an understanding of it as a whole and the only way to do that is by multiple perspectives.

Rampolla uses a word I was not familiar with entirely for history uses: synthesis. The idea is to do all other steps that the book discusses and then create your own perspective. I will have to do this on my research, it is an extemely daunting task. Hopefully I can gain this skill soon.

On this page the book discusses the idea of examing where the evidence came from. Who had it, where was it.. etc.. this is an extemely important role when trying to understand something from history, one must understand its context.

"historians goal is not to collect facts about the past but rather insight". This statement was spot on for me when looking at what history is. History is never static and always changing. Therefore with each passing time the interpretation or insights are different delving into the idea that in history most things are not fact.

"science seems different in character-more provisional less absolute--" I find this interesting. Science in my mind in absolute and can be proven. They seemed to move forward with the use of reasoning in decision making.

"For any history is always someones history"-- Wow. These words really hit something for me. Competing in speech and debate helps me try to give voices to those not able to speak. Without help, the people who's histories these belonged to would never get to be known as they should be.

"If truth depends on observer's standpoint how can there be any transcendent, universal, or absolute truth?"-- This question asked is an interesting one for sure. One that truly made me question what I knew about history. History is something that is always changing, there is no absolute do to the fact that interpretations are always changing with the times. Interesting.

In the epilogue.. it truly finishes off the book in an interesting way. White leaves us with one last sentence: "my mother's stories and my mother's silences, have made the world more dense and interesting". This quote does indeed give off what history is. History in complicated, and is something not everyone can truly understand. There are different perspectives and this is why history is dense, and never static

At this part in the book, Richard describes that with his first draft Sarah's reaction was terrible. She had a fear that he would ruin his father's memory. This idea is one that comes with a family history.... biases are everywhere and you want to protect them... there goes the accuracy.

White mentions the idea that public and private lives intermingle. He then moves to explain the idea that Sarah's life was changed by WWII. This is truly interesting. But it most definitely makes sense, with the war, comes changes, and with changes comes a change in the way one lives their life.

This part I find oddly compelling, due to the fact that it talks about how people would use harsh rhetoric when calling to the "jews". This still goes on today, xenophobia, the fear of a new culture, is rampant in many countries, not just the United States. This makes me sick knowing that it probably won't go away.