Difference between revisions of "471A3--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Tuesday"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
How can we as historians make sense out of the veterans' accounts of their experiences in battle when Desjardin claims the memories are full of "confusion, embellishment, [and] deception..." on page 47? -avanness | How can we as historians make sense out of the veterans' accounts of their experiences in battle when Desjardin claims the memories are full of "confusion, embellishment, [and] deception..." on page 47? -avanness | ||
| + | |||
| + | How can we as historians write ANY history of the battle at Gettysburg if all accounts are suspect? R.King | ||
| + | |||
| + | I was going to make some joke about just trusting Michael Shaara, but I wasn't sure if deadpan would work well over the internet. All that can be done, I think, is to wade through the hundreds (and hundreds and hundreds) of books, movies, articles and miscellanea regarding the battle of Gettysburg and write a history of the battle that is objective ENOUGH. --Cash | ||
| + | |||
| + | This theme of chroniclers writing the story that they wanted to has been evident throughout our readings this semester. How can anyone write a "true" history of the Civil War if the truth doesn't exist? -R.King | ||
| + | |||
| + | Why do you think Gettysburg has elicited so many different interpretations and meanings that are more flawed than accurate (according toe Dejardin? -ABratchie | ||
| + | |||
| + | Last class we mentioned several "what if" scenarios and what one historian claimed could have been done with all the money spent on the Civil War. In our reading, the author discusses how Congress appropriated $50,000 for one written history on the battle of Gettysburg. This sum is shocking to me for several reasons: 1. that the government would commission the written history (this is problematic in terms of objectivity), 2. that they would propose such a large amount (especially after such a costly war), and 3. that it would be entirely on Gettysburg (rather than on the Civil War as a whole). What was your reaction? - aaskins | ||
| + | |||
| + | Desjardin mentions the National Park Service's role in representing U.S. history. In a particular incident, he quotes the Sons of Confederate Veterans who said that the NPS should "return to its unaligned and apolitical policies of the past, presenting history, not opinions." In my research for my paper, I obtained an official NPS booklet from the 1970s on Andersonville prison camp. I found it odd that the NPS plays such a prominent role in the standardization of Civil War memory. I was also surprised that (at least in my source) there did not seem to be a particular slant. Is this generally true of NPS's role in Civil War memory?- aaskins | ||
| + | |||
| + | We have always been taught that historians use primary sources for evidence. They use them to prove that their thesis is true. So what happens, like in the case of personal accounts of Gettysburg, if the primary sources themselves are suspect? I think that it would lead to a thesis not being so simple. Scholars would definitely have to undertake the question of why the sources were embellished in the first place. - Angie | ||
| + | |||
| + | I thought it was interesting how the media influenced what people remembered and celebrated, just like it does today. Desjardin gives the example of Pickett’s charge and how it’s remembered as a Virginian affair because he and his men were from the area around Richmond, which was a media capital. Obviously, the stories that the media chose to report are those that the people heard of and therefore became famous. - Angie | ||
| + | |||
| + | I read an article not long ago that talked about the four different monuments dedicated to the first shot fired at Gettysburg. They are scattered all across the battlefield. Are monuments like these more important to the troops that fought in the battle than people that visit them? Does it really matter were the first shot was fired? Logan T | ||
| + | |||
| + | I really liked on page 44 where he talked about a football game and people’s interest in it. I have often wanted to bring up this point in class in explaining my feelings towards the war. How much of the Lost Cause and our emotional interest in the Civil War can be explained in same way that many people love their football teams? There is no important reason why you love your football team but you defend your team when they lose and praise them when they win. Are people’s interest in the Civil War the same as people’s interest in sports? Is it a similar attraction? Logan T | ||
| + | |||
| + | These are all questions I've been battling with as I finish up my paper. Is it possible to write a version of history that remains objective, or, if not objective, gives a view of a battle (or a person, or other event) that goes against the grain of common history while still remaining realistic and credible? I think the biggest issue we have is popular culture's effect on a battle as well-known as Gettysburg. Once you add Martin Sheen and Tom Berenger, you're basically set with national perception, I think. --Cash | ||
| + | |||
| + | How has the film industry influenced popular perceptions of the war? Has the visceral presentation of film versus literature done something new to the way Americans think about the war? Would children who care little about a battle's history put up memorials on battlefields without characters to relate to on a screen? -GStan. | ||
