Difference between revisions of "328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
m |
|||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
I liked the section on page four that discussion the "Female World of Love and Ritual" I found it interesting that women were able to establish such a difinitive bond with one another during the Victorian age which seemed markedly known for its rigid social rules. Perhaps it was out of this society that women found it necessary to establish bonds when they are so often excluded from the outside world. It is also an interesting and different way to view womens history in regards to their interactions with one another as opposed to their interactions with men. I feel like this is a perspective which might often be overlooked.--Emma | I liked the section on page four that discussion the "Female World of Love and Ritual" I found it interesting that women were able to establish such a difinitive bond with one another during the Victorian age which seemed markedly known for its rigid social rules. Perhaps it was out of this society that women found it necessary to establish bonds when they are so often excluded from the outside world. It is also an interesting and different way to view womens history in regards to their interactions with one another as opposed to their interactions with men. I feel like this is a perspective which might often be overlooked.--Emma | ||
| + | |||
| + | I find the discussion thus far fascinating in that there seems to be a consensus that there is such a thing as a separate/distinct/different history of women in opposition to the heavily male-centric histories that have become so entrenched as to be not so much history but heritage. There seemed to be an undercurrent of "rescuing from undeserved obscurity" throughout the readings as well as many of the entries here, and while that is an admirable goal, but it seems to me that many historians, not only those who focus on feminist history but other minority segments of the population as well, assign agency with a very liberal hand. The focus on the "ordinary woman/man," I think, is helpful in tracing larger societal and cultural trends that in turn influence the larger politically-driven histories that seem so male-centric, but I feel as though the liberal assignment of agency by many revisionist historians have actually delegitimized the achievements of figures that really have had an impact on history and wonder about the implications of that; for example, the growth of (in many times pseudo-history) African-American centered histories during the mid-late 1970s (not quite sure about the dates) that assigned agency to African Americans in outlandish ways such as asserting that the race was responsible for more or less every major event in American history. I might be making a stretch here, but I think that the creation of identity-based histories and the influence of such politics on histories are detrimental to minority segments of the population. Random thoughts--should there be such things as categories in history? Is there such a thing or are there just historians who specialize in certain aspects of history? -schang | ||
