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.