Historian's Code

As a historian, I vow to:

• Uphold the truths of history, despite how strong the tide of popular opinion may push against them
• Use and properly cite only the most accurate and/or relevant sources in my work, be they primary, secondary, or tertiary.
• Appreciate each day in my career as a day which will become a part of history, because when the sun sets on that day, that is exactly what it will become.
• Study, learn from, and teach history in its entirety, not just the pretty or flattering parts.
• Do no harm to historical documents, books, and other artifacts.
• Regularly watch so called "historical" films and e-mail directors when they adapt the events for the sake of dramatic effect. Yes, I'm talking to you, Roland Emmerich.
• Never forget that although I may earn my bachelor's, master's, or even doctorate, I will forever be a student, learning from the past.

The Struggle

So basically I'm having difficulty picking "main" primary and secondary sources. There are SO many articles out there on the impacts of 9/11. At this point, I'm pretty sure the main focus of the paper will be how 9/11 affected the national government, its foreign policies, and how the idea of national security changed after the attacks.

As I read, I'm discovering that terrorism is really the main focus of our national security programs, and some articles even state that 9/11 shaped the entire foreign policy of the U.S., although I believe that statement to be arguable and will probably end up debating such statements in my paper. Some articles even discuss how the U.S. hasn't really changed since the attacks. According to them, a lesson was learned, but that knowledge was not applied properly. Obviously, I still have a bit of research to do, as there are literally innumerable sources on 9/11 because everyone old enough to write on the topic was alive when it happened. Everyone experienced 9/11, so it's taking me a bit longer than expected to chisel through these sources and choose which ones will be most valuable to my paper.

So I guess what I'm saying here is that, growing up in the wake of 9/11, I haven't yet found any new information per se, yet I am discovering just how many individual groups had different 9/11 experiences. Muslims, Christians, Americans, veterans, New Yorkers, and probably even cats and dogs all have articles written on the impacts 9/11 had on them. My research questions have changed from, "How did 9/11 affect America," to "How much did 9/11 really affect America?" And this question is way more interesting than I thought. On the surface, one person might say America was totally changed; turned over on its head to never be the same. Others suggest the event changed America, but Americans don't really understand those changes or don't understand what exactly that meant for America. I know it sounds vague and confusing right now, but I'm honestly just now getting into the thick of this, and I don't have many answers, but I intend to find them through my research and explain them in my paper.

Developing a Thesis

There are probably innumerable approaches to developing a thesis.

Probably the most popular and conventional way is to write a sentence or a group sentences that establish what your paper is going to be about. The problem with this method is that often it leaves you with a thesis that is too lengthy or too broad, and when writing a scholarly work, it is often difficult to mention everything that will be in your paper in your thesis.

So, another approach is that you can use your thesis to state your stance on the issue being discussed in your paper. For instance, the topic of my paper is the impacts of American society caused by the September 11th, 2001 attacks. Hence, a very basic thesis statement would be, "The terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 caused immense impacts on American society." Of course, in the final draft I would have to describe exactly what impacts those attacks had.

Yet another way to develop a thesis is to begin with a question, then try to answer it. "Did 9/11 change American society? How? What groups, if any were impacted the most? The least?," and so on.

Lastly, some people prefer to basically write their paper backwards, almost. You can write your paper, which chisels in exactly what ideas will be in your paper, then write a thesis that blankets those ideas.

Plagiarism and Secondary Sources

Plagiarism is the act of using someone else's exact words or ideas in your own paper or speech without proper citation, which either blatantly or inadvertently claims the work as your own. Basically, when you commit plagiarism, you're using another person's work without giving them credit for it.

Plagiarism can be easily avoided, in my opinion. First of all, use your own words. I know that sounds basic, and it's not always easy, but it's the first way to avoid plagiarism. After reading from a certain source, try to develop your own ideas. You can also summarize and paraphrase your source's exact words if you are writing a review of that source or presenting information from it. Lastly, use quotation marks. By putting quotation marks around a word or sentence, you are directly stating "these are not my words, but are someone else's." Just don't forget to acknowledge exactly whose words they are (i.e. According to Matthew Bentley, "these are not my words, but are someone else's."

Now, for my paper on the social impacts of the 9/11 attacks, I have identified a few secondary sources including "What Lessons Did We Learn (or Re-Learn) About Military Advising After 9/11?" "Generation 9-11," and "How 9/11 Changed Our Culture" which are all news articles written after the September 11th attacks regarding lessons learned and how society was changed after those attacks. I think these sources will prove to be helpful in my paper for this reason.

Historical Controversies (This One's Going to be a Little Long, Sorry.)

There are so many historical controversies out there. The American Revolution, slavery, segregation, the Indian Removal Act, the Roswell UFO incident, and even more recent ones like 9/11, Confederate memorabilia, abortion, and the Iranian nuclear deal.

One of the most intriguing controversies to me is the Nixon Administration's Watergate Scandal. A lot of people I know find it boring, and I did too, at first. I really just find it interesting because Richard Nixon was one of the most popular presidents up to that time, winning just over 60% of the popular vote in the 1972 election. All but two states voted for Nixon to serve a second term.

But, you see, in 1972, two years before the election, two burglars were caught attempting to wiretap phones and conference rooms within the Democratic National Convention's headquarters in the Watergate Hotel, Washington D.C. After some phone numbers tied to Nixon were found with the burglars, people began to question the President's involvement in the espionage. However, Nixon assured the American people neither he, nor his office, was involved in the break-in, and Richard Nixon went on to win the election by a landslide in 1974.

Long story short, President Nixon was ratted out by some aides and campaign partners who testified to his crimes. Nixon not only lied about being unaware of the break-in, but also arranged for hundreds of thousands of dollars to be paid out in "hush money," and he even attempted to obstruct the CIA's investigation by means of the FBI. After hearing that Nixon's cover-up plans were recorded in the Oval Office, the Supreme Court demanded Nixon hand over the tapes, which ultimately led to his downfall.

Impeachment was inevitable, so Nixon resigned from the Presidency with his famous, "I am not a crook" speech. Gerald Ford later pardoned Nixon, yet the Watergate scandal changed American politics forever, and people began to think more seriously about who they chose as their leader.

To this day, 18 minutes of the Watergate tapes are missing and have never been found.

Historical Museums and Sites

I love history museums, although I rarely get the chance to visit them. However, I haven't yet visited one I did not thoroughly enjoy, but the History Museum of Mobile and the WWII Museum of New Orleans are perhaps my two favorites. Regarding historical sites, it'd be impossible for me to pick one to call my favorite.

The History Museum of Mobile is probably the one I'm most familiar with. I've been there multiple times and I always learn something new or notice something I hadn't before. Many native Mobilians and even Alabamians don't really understand the historical significance of Mobile, and I think a visit the history museum here should really be a priority for tourists and newcomers to the city.

I think my favorite exhibit in the museum is a room that contains numerous doll-houses in glass cases, but each of those houses actually existed in Mobile at one time, known as the Friedman Miniature House Gallery. Each of the glass cases has a switch by which you can turn on the lights within the house, and a placard with information of the houses. They really are beautiful and I just think it's so cool to know those houses and their grandeur were once a part of Mobile. I wish I had pictures to include here, but unfortunately I don't. However, there are millions of images on Google and if you haven't already I highly recommend you look it up and pay a visit. If you love history, you won't be disappointed.

My Favorite Historical Time Period

I'm honestly not sure where to begin with this one. I've never had anyone ask what my favorite historical era was.

I guess I'd have to say it's a tie between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. I just find them both so interesting: how just a few people with sharp minds and a willful hope for a better life caused a full-scale revolution.

 

We've been learning about the American Revolutionary Era in both the Historical Methods and the Women's History class, so I'm not going to bore you with a synopsis of it. However, I will bore you with why I like to study it. The American Revolution is so interesting to me because (1) as an American, I'm naturally interested to know how my country came to be, how it's framework was designed, and whose ideas and convictions were made the fundamental bases of our nation's philosophies. Secondly, the American Revolution was one that resulted in the birth of a whole new nation, one unlike the world had ever seen. Not to mention the fact that 13 colonies were able to defeat the mightiest empire in the world at the time, with the mightiest military, and that is simply astounding when you think about it. The American Revolution shocked the world, and the world was forever changed. One might argue the actual legitimacy of the Revolution: I've heard it said that it wasn't technically revolution but more of a partition, but still. That single Revolution created a shout of freedom that echoed throughout the whole world...

 

 

...and eventually found its way across the Atlantic to Paris. Considering that the French Revolution was only inspired by our very own American Revolution, I find it only fitting that I should be equally interested in the two. Besides, a bunch of peasants overthrowing a centuries-old monarchy, eating cake, and chopping off heads. What's not to be interested in? Just kidding, but really. The French Revolution politically flipped France upside-down. The weak became strong, the first became last, and for once, rich and poor became equal. Again, one might argue the efficiency of the French Revolution due to the fact that about 24 years later a king was back on the throne and the classes were once again divided. Nonetheless, it really is fascinating.

 

For a glimpse into the American Revolution and French Revolution check out these primary documents:

 

American: http://www.teachushistory.org/Revolution/t-bloody.htm

                  http://www.teachushistory.org/Revolution/t-account.htm

French: http://www.emersonkent.com/source_text/what_is_the_third_estate_1789.htm

             http://www.emersonkent.com/source_documents/bastille_ground_plan.htm

Same Song, Different Verse

One of the most intriguing things about history is that each historical subject may be viewed from seemingly innumerable different perspectives, and it is very likely that each of these perspectives will render a different conclusion about the subject. But how can this happen? How can we study a certain event or person, do it again at a later time, and find two different conclusions?

Well, the answer is fairly simple. It's all about perspective and our changing "lenses" through which we view history. First of all, there is always a great possibility that over the course of a few years or even months that new evidence may arise regarding the topic, which has the potential to change our perspectives on the situation. For instance, for years it was taught that Christopher Columbus was the first European to land on what would become the U.S. mainland and that Columbus discovered America. However, new evidence suggests that Leif Erikson and his band of Scandinavian Vikings were more likely the first and the Columbus actually landed somewhere in the Bahamas.

Secondly, every event has at least two sides. When you view the situation from one side, you reach one certain conclusion. When you view it from the other, you get another. When you view them both together, you get a whole new picture. A great example of this is the American Revolution. When you view the Revolution through the Loyalists' eyes, you see a government struggling under the weight of war debts and a widely dispersed empire, along with the fact that many colonists were adamantly opposed any tax or tariff placed on them to help reduce the debt. When you view the Revolution from the Patriots' point of view, you see an oppressive, money-hungry king and Parliament who insist on imposing heavy taxes and strict laws without giving them a proper vote in legislative activities.

Lastly, it seems that at least every five years or so views and morals are changing on a worldwide scale, and these changes may most definitely change the way we view certain people or events in history and therefore cause us to reach new conclusions. Issues such as gay rights and abortion are major examples today. Five years ago, 44 states either had laws against or statutory bans on gay marriage. Today, it is legal nationwide. As our morals and standards for social acceptance change, so do our views of the past.

It's all about perspective.

Why I'm a History Major

First of all, I'm not. I'm Secondary Education with a concentration in History, but that's merely a technicality.

That being said, I've always had a love for history; from my earliest memory I remember watching documentaries on the History Channel with my grandfather. Throughout my middle school and high school years, I began to learn not only history itself but the significance of history, which only deepened my interest in it. History is the story of us as a people, how can we truly understand where we're going if we don't stop every now and then to see where we've already been? History, if you will, is not only the story of us, but it also serves as a sort of rear-view mirror, which provides not only insightful information and cool stories, but also a reference point for us to see how far we're actually progressing as a society.

Another thing I love about history is that it's so shrouded in mystery, which is ironic because we, as in a human race, have lived through it, but are constantly having to look back saying, "What happened there?" History is never ending; it will always be available for study, it will always be fascinating. There's just such a vast amount of information that lies in history, it's literally endless. You can study everything that has happened from the very beginning of time all the way up to what happened yesterday. It's simply amazing.

Lastly, in our world today, our history is being attacked, erased, and destroyed. Considering the passion I have for history, I feel an obligation to protect it; to preserve it, which is precisely what I intend to do as a history teacher. I intend to teach my students raw history, as it truly happened, not as some political or civilian group would have liked for it to. If we don't learn history as it truly happened, we are doomed to repeat it. And let's be honest here, there are numerous historical events (i.e. the Holocaust, slavery, World Wars, basically the whole 15th century) that are incredible to study but we would rather not repeat them. In short, I love history, I always have. That's why I chose to dedicate my college career to the study of it.

Eyewitness to History: Maybe Not the Best Idea

Ever since I was a child, I have been told, "If you're not an eyewitness, you're a false witness." Now, as an aspiring historian, I question the true validity of that statement, and Lewis Gaddis seems to do the same in his book, Landscape of History. Human beings have long desired the ability to travel back in time and witness historical events firsthand, with many people believing time travel would open our eyes to people, places, and events that were somehow left out of the textbooks, therefore giving us a clearer understanding of what actually happened.

While time travel may allow someone to witness significant events firsthand, the answer to whether or not time travel would provide a better understanding of the events is highly conditional. As Gaddis described in Chapter One of his book, a man or woman who traveled back in time would find themselves enduring the same struggles that the people of that time were enduring, and this may serve as an obstacle for the historian. For example, someone who travels to the time of the Bubonic Plague in Europe would find themselves trying to avoid the plague, therefore that person wouldn't really be able to study, in depth, the events unfolding. The only way one could really study his/her chosen time period or event would be if they could somehow watch those events unfold without actually being in the midst of the war, plague, battle, etc., but that would defeat the whole purpose of time travel, would it not? Lastly, studying events ex post facto allows us to study an event in its entirety, examine the causes and effects, and with a relatively unbiased view.

The fact that we were unable witnessed some of these events firsthand does not imply that we are unable to understand and recount them as they happened. For all we know, if we traveled back to Nazi-occupied Europe, we may risk becoming another victim of the holocaust, whereas reading about it, talking to those who lived through it, and studying it, is much safer, and, after all, hindsight is 20/20.

Blog Reviews

The first blog post I read is titled, "One of the Many Incredibly Brave Polish Fighter Pilots Who Served in the British Royal Air Force after Poland Was Defeated and Occupied by Nazi Germany," authored by Charles McCain, and can be found at http://wwarii.com/blog/archives/incredibly-brave-polish-fighter-pilots-served-british-royal-air-force-poland-defeated-occupied-nazi-germany/. Overall, this post was quite interesting, and made for a very easy, quick read. The title practically sums up the subject of the post: a Polish fighter pilot named Stanisław Skalski (please don't ask me to pronounce that), and his life as in the Polish Air Force, and later the Royal Air Force. The author included a picture of Skaliski in his Hawker Hurricane during the Battle of Britain and was sure to explain what the Iron Crosses on the side of the plane represented. Aside from a few typing errors, Mr. McCain appears to be an exceptional writer and I look forward to exploring more of his blog posts in the future.

The second blog I examined is titled Boston 1774, authored by J.L. Bell, and this blog site focuses primarily on the start of the American Revolution, specifically in Boston. The thing I really like about Bell's blog posts is how he incorporates newspaper articles and other sources from the time period that help to give the reader a sense of presence at the events he discusses. He allows his reader to understand the mentality of those involved at the time, not just the events themselves. Also, Bell will often stretch his discussions out over a few days. For example, the blog post I read was actually Part 2 of a 3 Part blog discussion. This keeps his readers interested and curious to find out what happened next in the chosen course of events. Another aspect of his blog that made it intriguing is simply the blog format and design he chose. His blog has a "historical feel" to it, and this is a result of the font, the colors, etc. Surprisingly, these choices in design, in a way, seem to reflect the author's own passion for history and his professionalism, and this draws respect and interest from his readers. If more bloggers like the previously mentioned Charles McCain put forth the effort to make a professional, neat blog like Mr. Bell, their blogs will undoubtedly become more interesting to their readers. You can read Mr. Bell's blog at http://boston1775.blogspot.com/. Happy Blogging!