Hi!
I've got an exam coming up and I have no idea how to prepare!!!
I'ts going to strictly be on the 'what is history' topic and apparantly I need to prepare a few historians and be able to write about their works.
do you have any suggestions?
thanks!
Hi,
Its awesome to see a history extension forum section! Thanks for creating this ;D ;D
I've got a question regarding the external examination weighting for history extension. Someone told me your major work is worth around 40% whilst the actual written exam is worth 60%. However I've heard others saying that the externals are completely reliant on your written exam and not the major work, and that the major work only contributes to your internal marks.... I don't know who is right....
No worries! I'm glad you find this thread useful ;D
Okay so the thing with the history extension major work is that unlike other major works in art, music, drama, SAC, ext2 english, etc where it is sent off and assessed by an panel of external markers, the one for history extension is marked internally. This means that it is not sent to BOSTES/NESA and is instead marked by your teacher (and anyone else they deem qualified if they want to double mark).
That means that even if your major work may have an 80% weighting (like mine did) internally, externally it is just included within your internal mark. The actual percentage mark you receive for your major work is not sent off to BOSTES/NESA, and is essentially useless past being used to ascertain your internal rank (position within the subject cohort at your school), which they do send and is used within the moderation process to determine your overall mark. So you need to make sure that your exam skills are tight, because in the end that is the main determinant for your overall HSC mark. Eg. lets say that you smashed the major work with 50/50 internal mark coming first within your cohort, however in the exam (still achieving the highest mark) you recieve 44/50. Despite your internals being 50/50, your final HSC mark will be 44/50 - an E3 (still a fantastic mark, but may be a bit disappointing if you were expecting close to 100%).
I hope this makes sense! ;D It is definitely a confusing process, so if you have any other questions, feel free to post below :)
Susie
Oooo I C now. Thanks for the quick response ;D it all makes sense now.
Only thing now is that I am even more concerned about the two essay questions for the HSC.... 100% weighting, that is indeed scary... :( :(
It's not exactly 100% weighting (unless you rank internally first and come first in the exam as well) as the major work does help to determine your rank which is important, however yes the exam are worth a lot more than most people think. However now you know! and super early within the game so you have more than enough time to prepare yourself for what those questions can throw at you :) You'll be A okay trust me ;)That's true, I guess it is also a team sport as-well ;D, as long as the whole cohort goes well including yourself then everyone will be rewarded
That's true, I guess it is also a team sport as-well ;D, as long as the whole cohort goes well including yourself then everyone will be rewarded
Definitely! Not just in history extension but all of your subjects! (though as history extension classes are usually quite small it does become increasingly important). I highly recommend group study sessions. Before the HSC History Extension exam my friend and I found an empty classroom, got a white board marker from a teacher and started writing out as much as both of us knew, working out historians point of views, constructing arguments and debates etc. etc. and I cannot begin to describe how helpful I found it (plus surprisingly really fun!)
Thank you so so so much for making this thread!! Bless your heart!
I have a slightly concerning question about my History Extension major work. I haven't really started at all (I know, I know, i've had ages and i've practically stuffed up the entire major work because I have absolutely no motivation and I am the queen of procrastination), so my question is: how do I start? I have my main idea (Witchcraft as Gender History) and I've decided the two events of history which may have impacted the way history is recorded (first and second wave of feminism), but I have no idea how to begin writing the actual major work. I am yet to find historians, but I have heaps of readings to do so that should be fine, but my issue is the way I should layout my major work and basically how do I start actually writing it, proposal and synopsis included.
Honestly I've asked my teacher and he just gives me more readings and I feel like I am slowly drowning!!
If you could help me out that would be actually so fantastic!!
Thanks :) :) :-* :-*
Hey sudodds :D
You've had some really great advice, thanks for that
Just a question: how would you structure the first HSC question, the 'what is history' one? I've practiced writing concept-based essays rather than chronological, but still find trouble incorporating the source. Also, how much information is it required to know about each historian? Like I know that we need their name (obviously), their type of historiography, maybe examples from them and context, but is there anything else? How much detail is needed?
Hey!!
Hmm this is a tricky one! Again, I always wrote concept driven essays (NEVER write a chronology - that's a history essay not a historiography essay), and in particular later on ones that revolved around the themes and issues I discussed within my major work. It's great that you're already practicing those types of essays, keep it up! In terms of incorporating the source really the only way that you can do this is by making sure that the arguments you present within your response are highly relevant to those being discussed within the extract. For example, lets say that the question was "to what extent can history be objective," and the source was mainly focused around the concept of bias (eg. bias of historians, evidence, society) etc. then you'd want that to be the main theme of your essay, not other factors such as linguistics (definitely something that you can still mention and include, just make sure the overriding focus - particularly your topic sentences - directly relate to the source). I'd say a really easy way of doing this is integrating quotes within the explanation of your topic sentences. When reading the extract I'd often find quotes that just summed up a potential argument, and I'd just continually refer to them :) Remember that you will also have to be including 2 related sources though, so keep their arguments in mind and how they relate to various aspects of the source as well! In regards to historians... your second question.
In terms of how much information you need to know on historians... that's another really tricky question to answer. Really you want to have a very strong knowledge of their background (why they formulate their opinions) and then their opinions in general. Examples are definitely a must, both explicit in-text reference, and also any examples of their historiorgraphical concepts (for eg. I used David Vincent a lot who spoke about flaws of "great men history." I'd often related this back to our limited knowledge on the common people during the Julio-Claudian dynasty in comparison to the emperors.) It's going to be really hard to do this for every historian you learn, so I think it is a good idea to find a group of maybe 3-5 historians, who present a wide range of opinions and discuss multiple topics, that can be used for most questions. For me this was EH Carr (a staple imo), David Vincent and Keith Jenkins (I also used a lot of the historiography I learnt within my major work as well).
I hope this helps!! Good luck ;D
Hey,
I'm struggling with my practice essay on the construction of history. It has to do with how sources contribute to new forms of history. I'm not sure how to structure and what my main points should be
Hello,
For my history extension project, I am currently doing the 'history of the anti-vivisection movement in the UK'. My teacher is always telling us to "narrow down!!" so does anyone think that this topic is too broad? Should I narrow down on a particular set of dates rather than trying to cover it all? I thought I could cover everything, but obviously I'll do whatever gets me the best marks.
Thanks,
Jenna. :)
Hi there! I've been really struggling to develop a clear and sophisticated question for my major work. I'm interested in investigating the role of imaginative reenactment in historical works, reflecting a lot of the ideas of Hayden White and Simon Schama about how the sort of 'novelisation' of history is inevitable, but doesn't necessarily compromise historicity and can even be beneficial for a greater understanding of the past. I'd like to use examples from historical novels and television shows, particularly about Anne Boleyn since she's one of the most 'characterised' historical figures of all time, that show how history can be told through narratives based on reliable evidence rather than just traditional empiricism, making it a kind of comparison between the works of academic historians and historical novelists. I feel like a topic like this has a lot of different aspects and I'm not sure how to condense it into a question. Any ideas? Sorry it's such a broad question, any advice would be super helpful! :)
Hi!
Just a question regarding historians.
Would you consider Henry Reynolds a Relativist and Keith Windshuttle an empiricist?
To me it appears that Windshuttle is more concerned with the archives and in a sense follows the Rankean tradition of history whereas Reynolds is more of a political activist who believes that the historians perspective on a particular event is the defining factor.
Any advice or guidance would be greatly appreciated
Thanks! ;D
Hey! Okay so I only studied these two very briefly, so take my opinion with a grain of salt (take every opinion with a grain of salt! This is extension! 8))Thanks for the response! :)
From what I remember they are probably the most accurate labels to use for both historians. However, remember that labels leave little room for nuance. In my opinion, rather than saying that Keith Windschuttle is an empiricist, say that he follows an empiricist methodology :) In the same way, say that Henry Reynolds adopts a relativist position, rather than just say he is a relativist, because though he does believe (from memory) that the historian's perspective is critical, almost all historians, even relativist historians, use empirical methods to research and create their own works :) This is just a teeny weeny thing, and like, you probably wouldn't be marked down. But its just an extra precaution in case you get a particularly pedantic marker :)
Hope this helps! I'd double check this with your teacher, as again we didn't really cover them extensively last year, but I'm pretty sure this is right :)
For some further readings on their position (other than their books of course!) I found these reviews that may help :)
- Henry Reynolds
- Keith Windschuttle
Susie
Thanks for the response! :)No worries! Yeah your teacher has the right idea :) For example, even defining Von Ranke as an empiricist isn't entirely correct! His famous quote where he said his work would reflect history "as it actually was" was most likely a mistranslation of German :o What many believe he actually said was "as it essentially was" - which means something entirely different!
And yeah you're right about labeling the historians. When I asked my teacher what each historian's methodology can be labelled as he did seem a bit hesitant to distinctively place them into a 'category'.
Also thanks for the readings! :)
Hello again
I've got a question regarding how to answer the 'what is history' question. My friend told me (who is in the other ext history class) that the best way to answer the question is to begin each paragraph/argument with a quote from the stimulus/source and then discuss historians/debates that are related to that section of the source.
I haven't done any past papers yet and I'm kind of worried about this exam (on Thursday). Would this be an okay way to approach the question?
Also I know this question has already being answered before and the info you provided was great ;D However im just wondering if this would be an acceptable way also
Thanks! ;D
Hey hey!
I love that your school has enough students for TWO classes! We just scraped 4 students in my year haha :P
That would be a great way to structure your response! Reason being it means that you are making sure that your arguments are constructed around the source, which is key in history extension - if you don't integrate the source enough then you are in serious trouble! I would probably shy away from making them your topic sentence - that should be your own judgement. However I almost always included a quote from the source in my explanation of judgement directly after! So for example lets say if I was doing a question on "to what extent can history be objective", the beginning of my paragraph could look like this:
Historical objectivity is unattainable, as due to the extensive brevity of historical archives it is impossible for a historical producer to have studied all relevant material. As suggested in Source A, "a historian can only know something about something," as in order to write history, historical producers must specialise, principally by forming a question of enquiry that denotes significance to one particular aspect of a chosen historical field.
In terms of moving on from there, its imperative that you are discussing historians (and historiographers!)/debates relevant to that section, however make sure that you go further than discussion and analyse. Why does that historian present a particular view? What are his/her methodologies when constructing history? How do historiographical concepts such as post modernism, social history, popular history, empiricism etc. fit in? It's not enough to just write a "he said, she said." You have to demonstrate that you understand the why's and how, and even more importantly that you develop your own voice! YOUR own opinion needs to be there somewhere (if you want to test out your own voice please try out this thread! Perfect study before your exam and also severely neglected :( )
Hope this helps!
Susie
Hiya!! :)
Bit of an odd question. I included the word "zeitgeist" in part of my major work ("the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time") but upon revision I find the concept pretty unattainable in hindsight. I was wondering if I can get some thoughts/opinions/personal interpretations? It would really help me organize my thoughts :D :D :D
Hi! :)Ah okay I getcha! Definitely an interesting argument - and I have to agree with you there! To suggest that one, universally applicable zeitgeist can be applicable to a period of time (or even just a period of time within one section of the world!) is very simplistic. For example, looking at the Middle Ages as the 'Dark Ages', categorised as backwards, superstitious and uneducated/cultured, is most definitely not an accurate label to describe the Islamic World at this time, which was going through a kind of golden era. There is actually a historiographical concept to describe this - reductionism (a bunch of my students are doing their major works on this, so interesting that you brought this up!) :) I also love how you linked this idea to other issues, such as sexism, classism and racism, because they definitely play an important role. It was only in recent decades (1970s - ) that history has begun to be written from other perspectives (social history/bottom up history), prior to that the history of 'Great White Men' was dominant - and thus their actions contributed to the apparent 'zeitgeist'. So if you want to do more research on this, I definitely recommend having a look into the concepts of reductionism and social history/history from the bottom up :)
It happened to pop up relatively naturally - I was writing about looking back on the past and attempting to capture an 'accurate' sense of essence, until I gave it some thought and decided that it can't actually be done. Ultimately, I'm trying to say that 'period' labels are pretty arbitrary, and that a generalized 'essence' is subject to a whole heap of sexism, classism and racism. I decided I should probably get some other ideas so that I can get a nice, well-rounded opinion :)
How do you study for the paper one section?
hey!!Hey hey!! I defs recommend giving history extension a go! Was one of the best choices I made for my HSC last year - one of the most interesting courses that I studied, really changed my worldview on a lot of things :)
our school is offering history extension for the first time next year...
and i am wondering if anyone would seriously recommend it??? ;D
is it heaps of work?? can it be compared to any other subjects?? is it super hard??
sorry for so many questions... i just want to make a sensible decision!!! ;)
Hello :DHeya!!
I've got a question regarding my major work,
I've been looking at the top past projects that won the extension history essay prize and most of their questions are really really specific. I'm kinda worried that my question is way too broad, do you have to be specific in-order to go well?
I was talking to a substitute history teacher at my school and he said that he has never seen someone get an E4 using my project topic (this obviously really scared me haha ;D). However he did say that as long as the teachers are happy with your project idea then it doesn't matter since they will be marking it.
I got 20/20 for my project proposal so I think they should hopefully approve of my essay if it is done well. What do you think about my question? is it too broad?
I haven't really pinpointed my question exactly yet but it consists of these two main questions:
1) Discuss the changing interpretations of the Spartacus legend/figure over time
2)Explain the reasons as to why historians over time have adopted different perspectives of the Spartacus legend.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated ;D
thanks!
Oh and also just another question,DO NOT WRITE A CHRONOLOGY. DO NOT. You will get hammered by the markers, because that is not historiography - that is the history of historiography (so essentially just a history essay). Instead, focus on the historiographical concepts and how they can be demonstrated through historiography on Sparta - this will also allow you to develop your own voice, rather than just letting us know what the different interpretations were throughout history.
I've got a lot of historians on my topic (far too many to spend time speaking about all of them). Do you think I should just focus on the historians who have the most to say (for example for my ancient historians Appian is the principal source on Spartacus, writing the most about him and going into the most detail).
I was thinking of adopting a chronological approach to my essay. So starting with the ancient (antiquity) perspective of Spartacus and then going through to the modern accounts of Spartacus. Would this be an effective way to approach my question(s).
Thanks! :)
Heya!!
Okay so to be completely and 100% honest with you - your questions do seem quite broad, and yes, it is harder to get an E4 with a question like that - not only because it is broad, but because it limits you conceptually by focusing on an area of history within your question - however guess what, with only a little bit of tweaking we can fix it up!
So you're looking at Sparta yeah? Well rather having your question on Sparta, why don't we make the question a bit more broad (I know that might sound weird in the context of this topic but trust me), such as (and this should not be your final question):
Analyse why interpretations of historical events change over time.
Then use Sparta as your case study that you will integrate throughout. Why have a suggested this? Well, by broadening the scope of the question and making the focus historiography, you are limiting your ability to write a history essay rather than a historiography essay. With Sparta a focus of your question, it becomes way easier to just fall into the trap of writing spartan history. Along with this, by using Sparta as a case study rather than a focus question, you are demonstrating that not only do you understand broader historiographical concepts, but know how to identify them as well! Finally, it gives you more room conceptually. It allows for you to fit in more historiographical theories and discussion, rather than history. This'll make it so much easier when looking for evidence, because rather than every source having to relate directly to Sparta, it can instead link to a broader historiographical concern (basically any piece of historiography), which then you link to Sparta as a case study - further demonstrating your ability to link theory to practice!
But then... is the question I gave you a good one? Hardly - way too broad and simplistic. What we need to do is narrow our focus, while still keeping it accessible for Spartan history to be utilised as a case study. The way to do this, in my opinion, is to look at the historiographical concepts. Now there are SOOOOOOO many to choose from. Like literally so many, many of which you will have studied in class. However I can think of one of the top of my head that I think could work really well!!! THE SPARTAN MIRAGE.
The Spartan Mirage is the term used to describe the mainstream interpretation of Sparta - aggressive, totalitarian, militaristic, no culture/art/etc.etc. It is an example of REDUCTIONIST history - focusing on only a few elements in order to formulate a larger narrative. When it comes to Sparta in particular, you've got to critically assess who the majority of their history is filtered through - Athenian writers ;) With that in mind, now this is only a suggestion, but what if this was your question?
Critically analyse the purpose and implications of reductionist history, and it's ability to formulate a holistic truth.
Subtitle: An analysis of the Spartan Mirage and it's impact upon the interpretations of Spartan history and historiography.
Obviously that is just a suggestion, and there are many other questions that could work really well as well! But yeah, I think the above question would work quite nicely - it's not so narrow that you'll struggle to find information, but not too broad that you'll be writing forever. I'd then suggest breaking up your paragraphs by looking closely at the purpose and implications of reductionism as a concept, then through your paragraphs integrate how this is demonstrated through the Spartan Mirage (kinda like how in a discovery essay you don't want to discuss the texts in your first sentence!)
DO NOT WRITE A CHRONOLOGY. DO NOT. You will get hammered by the markers, because that is not historiography - that is the history of historiography (so essentially just a history essay). Instead, focus on the historiographical concepts and how they can be demonstrated through historiography on Sparta - this will also allow you to develop your own voice, rather than just letting us know what the different interpretations were throughout history.
In terms of historians as I said earlier the best to incorporate would be historiographers, that may not be discussing Sparta specifically, but that look at concepts that directly impact Spartan historiography. Take a look at people like John Vincent, EH Carr, Hayden White, etc. etc. They may not be writing about Sparta, but their historiographical ideas can still be used to great effect! Great to include some Spartan historians as well, but their inclusion should be more so to demonstrate the interpretations than to present an argument.
Hope this helps! If you have any questions let me know :)
Susie
Thanks so much for the advice! :DOmg lol hahaha completely my mistake - read it wrong the first time and then that just stuck in my head. But most of my points (aside from the specific ones about Sparta) still stand - the best essays will use Spartacus as a case study to demonstrate the significance of a wider historiographical issue or concept. I'd still look into reductionism - it works with most topics (all of my history extension students did their major works on reductionism - completely independent of one another hahaha). Other thing I'd have a look at is linguistics, and the concept of legends in general - why are they created? Defs look into the different interpretations, but don't just do a paragraph on each interpretation - draw out the concepts, and why these concepts relate particularly to a particular school of thought, etc. etc. :)
I agree with you I really do have to pin-point my question, and yes no chronological approach thanks so much for clearing that up, I was legit about to start writing my draft essay haha, that would've been bad...... :D
One thing, sorry if I didn't make it clear in my first post :D
I'm actually doing 'Spartacus', the leader of the famous roman gladiator slave revolt of 73BC.
Essentially what I'm thinking of doing (and what my teacher said i should do) is looking at the changing interpretations of the Spartacus legend over time. My teacher said i should focus on why particular views have been adopted and what has driven these views. For example Marxist historians (of the 20th century) adopt different views of the Spartacus hero/legend as opposed to the historians of antiquity. Most modern historians portray Spartacus as a freedom fighter, fighting against a tyrannical Roman government, whereas the historians of antiquity perceive him as a bandit and criminal. So possibly looking at the driving forces behind these vastly different perspectives. And why over time people have adopted different views of the legend.
Would that work?
Thanks again for the advice :D
Omg lol hahaha completely my mistake - read it wrong the first time and then that just stuck in my head. But most of my points (aside from the specific ones about Sparta) still stand - the best essays will use Spartacus as a case study to demonstrate the significance of a wider historiographical issue or concept. I'd still look into reductionism - it works with most topics (all of my history extension students did their major works on reductionism - completely independent of one another hahaha). Other thing I'd have a look at is linguistics, and the concept of legends in general - why are they created? Defs look into the different interpretations, but don't just do a paragraph on each interpretation - draw out the concepts, and why these concepts relate particularly to a particular school of thought, etc. etc. :)
haha no worries, and yes everything you said (on Sparta) is applicable to my Spartacus topic. (tbh when i first saw your mishap i was worried you wasted like 20 mins writing all that valuable info hahaha :D)
Also I see what you mean, my teacher didn't even talk about using a specific event as a case study but discussing a wider 'historiographical' issue (such as reductionism). Such a good idea :D Thanks!!
Thank god for ATAR notes haha.
I'm going to start writing some drafts since I've written literally thousands of words of notes and I think i just need to play around with the essay. I'll be sure to post some of my drafts on the marking page :D
Also just to clarify, the history extension essay is only marked internally right? If so, wouldn't it be best to do exactly what your teacher wants? Should I pass by the idea of using reductionism through him before i do anything on it first? Or do you reckon i should just go with it?
Thanks again!
Hey,
Having the exact same problem as Maraos. My question was orignally To what extent was the US justified in dropping the atomic bombs. But I felt like that was too broad and nowhere near an E4 question even though my proposal received 20/20. I'm looking at the issue of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and how different interpretations allow for different records of history to be constructed.
However, I am sturggling to come up with a question that would effectively back up my arguments..
Any help would be greatly appreiciated
Hey! So as I said in my feedback, the best questions in my view are ones that don't even mention and historical event/figure, but instead focus on a historiographical concept of issue and use the event/figure as a case study to demonstrate the validity (or maybe inaccuracy!) of the historiographical concept or issue. For example, this was my question last year:"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute."
~ Mao Tse-Tung (On Contradiction, 1937)[/i]
To what extent is the discipline of History experiencing this dialectical dilemma?
Essentially what I was saying was that though the discipline of history is arguably thriving, with the likes of postmodernism/linguistic turn expanding our understanding of the nature of history and historiography, and social history/bottom-up approach allowing for new areas of exploration and a renewed significance of the past, they are simultaneously contributing to the watering down and "destruction" of history, as they have perverted the central aim of history - to record the truth, thus transforming the discipline into its "opposite" - a discipline focused on striving for objectivity (even if it was unattainable) to one that thrives on its own subjectivity. That was my concept. Throughout my essay however I incorporated and discussed extensively as my case study the historian Bill O'Reilly. However, rather than basing my essay around him and his works, I instead based my arguments around the dialectical issue, using my own (and others) criticisms of O'Reilly to back up my arguments, by suggesting that though it is borderline blasphemous to suggest that he is a historian comparable to the likes of Hobsbawm, Porter or Carr due to his poor methodologies and questionable motives, he is STILL a historian because the qualities of which are now impossible to discern due to this dialectical perversion.
Long winded explanation, but I hope you get the idea. Use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a case study to support your interpretation of a wide historiographical concept.
Now. Lets work out what specifically your question should be shall we! I actually don't think you need to stray to far away from your original idea, just broaden it (historiographically, not concept wise - you want to keep that specific). I think you can keep your idea of how interpretations of history can provide a justification for past events - focusing on the idea of purpose, and its impact on historical truth. So maybe like (you'd want to clean this up a bit, but just spitballing here): "To what extent is the purpose of national history to justify past national actions?". You'd look at this broadly first, but then you'd use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as your case study to demonstrate the validity (or inaccuracy) of this statement, looking at the opposing national histories of the US and Japan, and how each interpretation of the event is used to justify their actions (or berate the others). Does this make sense? Then you could look at such historiographical concepts such as Nationalism (highly recommend looking at Hobsbawm's book 'Nations and Nationalism since 1780'), maybe Hayden White's concept of Tropes, Social history, etc. etc. :)
Hope this helps! You don't have to follow what I said above, just trying to give you some ideas of how to approach it! At the end of the day I am neither an expert on the topic (or on history extension mind!), so it is up to you to make the final (and make sure informed!) decision :) I'd recommend having a chat with your teacher as well, see what they think!
Susie
Hello again :DNo worries Maraos! As it's only an intro happy to just look at it here (+ won't count towards your post balance :) )
I did some research on reductionism and found some past essays which were on similar issues to get some ideas and I made this intro. I'm not too sure if this is what you exactly had in mind but i tried to follow your advice ;D
I'm going to hand this into my teacher tomorrow so that i can get some feedback before holidays.
Critically analyse the purpose and implications of reductionist history, and its ability to formulate a holistic truth.
An analysis of the Spartacus legend and its impact upon the interpretations of Spartacus and historiography
The perception and portrayal of the historical figure of Spartacus has changed significantly over time. Historian’s attitudes towards the true character of Spartacus are often conflicting, over time the interpertations of Spartacus have evolved from the Ancient perspectives who portrayed Spartacus as a criminal and bandit. This image remained mostly unchallenged in the middle Ages and Renaissance. However from the 1700s and onwards, the depiction of Spartacus has been greatly impacted. To many moderns Spartacus has been an outright inspiration, as pointed out by Eckstein; “There is a compelling and tragic appeal about an armed rebellion of the utterly downtrodden, which aimed at human freedom, and achieved much against its ferocious slave owning society but ultimately failed.” These polar-opposite perspectives begs the question of whether or not there is a definitive history. As argued by Keith Jenkins; “History is basically a contested discourse, an embattled terrain wherein people(s), classes and groups autobiographically construct interpretation of the past literally to please themselves. There is no definitive history outside these pressures.” Jenkins’ has challenged the paradigms of traditional historical practice and has delegitmised the centralized authority of academia. This reductionist approach to historical scholarship is clearly evident in the Spartacus legend, as pointed out by Beard on the one hand the “Roman writers, for whom slave uprising were probably the most alarming sign of a world turned upside down, wildly exaggerate the number of supporters Spartacus attracted.” Whilst on the other hand; “modern accounts have often wanted to make Spartacus an ideological hero.” On-top of these differing perspectives, more recent ‘popular’ forms of historical representation have added an extra layer to the influx of reductionist perspectives. Therefore, this essay will aim to uncover both the differing interpretations of the Spartacus legend over time, and to further understand the reasons as to why historians have adopted these views. In-doing so, I hope to uncover the implications of reductionist history and its ability or inability thereof to formulate a holistic truth.
Wasn't sure if this counted as a 'history extension marking' thread post since it's just an intro. Sorry if i posted it in the wrong spot :-\
Any advice would be great
Thanks! ;D ;D
Thank you very much Susie, this was extremley helpful as usual!!No worries damecj! Glad you found it helpful :D
No worries Maraos! As it's only an intro happy to just look at it here (+ won't count towards your post balance :) )
My comments can be found in the spoiler!SpoilerCritically analyse the purpose and implications of reductionist history, and its ability to formulate a holistic truth.
An analysis of the Spartacus legend and its impact upon the interpretations of Spartacus and historiography
The perception and portrayal of the historical figure of Spartacus has changed significantly over time. Your first sentence should always answer the question - ie. you need to be making a judgement on reductionism! I'd probably not even mention Spartacus in your first sentence.
Treat this a bit like a discovery essay. You want to introduce discovery as a concept first in your intro, and then introduce your prescribed and related texts. Spartacus is your text, that you have chosen to demonstrate your judgment upon the concept of reductionism :) Historian’s attitudes towards the true character of Spartacus are often conflicting, over time the interpertations of Spartacus have evolved from the Ancient perspectives who portrayed Spartacus as a criminal and bandit. This image remained mostly unchallenged in the middle Ages and Renaissance. However from the 1700s and onwards, the depiction of Spartacus has been greatly impacted. This is too history - you're providing me with an outline of the interpretations of Spartacus. I want to see a discussion upon the role of reductionism in history! To many moderns Spartacus has been an outright inspiration, as pointed out by Eckstein; “There is a compelling and tragic appeal about an armed rebellion of the utterly downtrodden, which aimed at human freedom, and achieved much against its ferocious slave owning society but ultimately failed.” These polar-opposite perspectives begs the question of whether or not there is a definitive history. This should have been introduced earlier - still waiting for a discussion upon reductionism! As argued by Keith Jenkins; “History is basically a contested discourse, an embattled terrain wherein people(s), classes and groups autobiographically construct interpretation of the past literally to please themselves. There is no definitive history outside these pressures.” Nice quote, but is it the best for reductionism? Jenkins’ has challenged the paradigms of traditional historical practice and has delegitmised the centralized authority of academia. This reductionist approach but you haven't explained what this is yet! to historical scholarship is clearly evident in the Spartacus legend, as pointed out by Beard on the one hand the “Roman writers, for whom slave uprising were probably the most alarming sign of a world turned upside down, wildly exaggerate the number of supporters Spartacus attracted.” Whilst on the other hand; “modern accounts have often wanted to make Spartacus an ideological hero.” Much better :) On-top of these differing perspectives, more recent ‘popular’ forms of historical representation have added an extra layer to the influx of reductionist perspectives. Therefore, this essay will aim to uncover both the differing interpretations of the Spartacus legend over time, and to further understand the reasons as to why historians have adopted these views. In-doing so, I hope to uncover the implications of reductionist history and its ability or inability thereof to formulate a holistic truth.
You need to focus way more on reductionism here. That is the focus of your question, but if I didn't know your question I wouldn't know that. I also wouldn't know what reductionism is from your introduction, which is a bad sign. Rather than providing an outline of interpretations, discuss and introduce the concept of reductionism as its own thing, disconnected from Spartacus. Mention why reductionism is used and why it is inevitable, provide a judgement as to whether it provides a false narrative, whether it is purposeful or incidental, etc. etc. Remember that all history is reductionist to a certain extent - consider EH Carr's fishing analogy in 'What is History?'. A historian doesn't have the time (and many the inclination) to read and observe ALL sources pertinent to an issue, thus there will always be gaps in knowledge. As David Hackett Fisher suggests, a historian can only know "something about something" - they can never know or write about the whole truth, thus they are being reductionist! Furthermore, source pools are by nature reductionist. Have at this extract from John Vincent's work 'The Intelligent Person's Guide to History' (I actually recommend reading this fully - a great source for Section I of the exam!!)"History is deeply male. History is essentially non-young. History is about the rich and famous, not the poor. History favours the articulate, not the silent. History is about winners (including those losers who were eventual winners), not about losers. History is about assessing distortions, not copying out truths. History has to live with, is indeed the child of censorship: the censorship by one culture of its predecessor, the censorship by a great modern bureaucracy of its own overproduction of records, the censorship of astute reticence by those aware that the eye of posterity will watch them. History has much to say about the way the powerful handle power, for power engenders records.
History is about evidence, and evidence flagrantly distorts. There is a bias in the creation of evidence, and a bias in the survival of evidence. There may be a bias in access to what survives, too. There is a bias towards the important (and self-important), a political bias to winners against losers, a bias towards the stable and against the unstable, and perhaps a deliberate censorship of the past by the past on top of that. Before we even get to modern historians, distortion is built into the very nature of history...
...This suggests a simple rule. No evidence, no history; imperfect evidence, imperfect history.Against such stark considerations, purity of motive on the part of historians today faces an uphill task. The distortions in evidence that are already there, cannot be brushed away with a broom called objectivity."
So yeah, TL;DR I think you need to consider the concept of reductionism more. Your links however between Reductionism and Spartacus were great!
Hope this helps,
Susie
Thanks so much for the help! :DNo worries! Hahaha it is hard, but necessary! I was definitely quite caught up on the Modern 'Historical Investigation' mind at the beginning - a takes a while (and practice!) to sink in! So many students get caught in the trap of writing a history essay and not a historiography essay - but now you know so you can make sure to avoid it!
I gotta drum out my ancient history mind when writing extension history. ;D
if this has been answered before, i'm sorry - i haven't seen it. but how much do you need to know about this historians for section two. all i've got is historians and their view points on things and it's giving me anxiety because i don't know if i'm doing it right (i'm doing JFK)Hey! This hasn't been answered before (and even then it wouldn't be a big deal dw ;)! It sounds like you're in a pretty good spot don't worry! That was about as much as I knew going into trials - history extension is a very difficult subject to study for bar doing past papers, so please don't be anxious! We're all in the same boat ;) Knowing the historians and their views is definitely important, however I think what is more important is understanding why these views have come to be! Section II is very similar to Section I, in that the overriding focus is still the construction of history, whereby you should be integrating historiographical concepts and issues (eg. postmodernism, linguistics, reductionism, empiricism etc.), however linking them specifically to how they are demonstrated throughout your case study.
Hey! This hasn't been answered before (and even then it wouldn't be a big deal dw ;)! It sounds like you're in a pretty good spot don't worry! That was about as much as I knew going into trials - history extension is a very difficult subject to study for bar doing past papers, so please don't be anxious! We're all in the same boat ;) Knowing the historians and their views is definitely important, however I think what is more important is understanding why these views have come to be! Section II is very similar to Section I, in that the overriding focus is still the construction of history, whereby you should be integrating historiographical concepts and issues (eg. postmodernism, linguistics, reductionism, empiricism etc.), however linking them specifically to how they are demonstrated throughout your case study.
Unfortunately I didn't study JFK, however I'll give you a Western Imperialism example. One reason a historical producer may wish to write history is for the purpose of justifying the present. This is evident through the way in which Western Imperialism and British colonial expansion is interpreted by Niall Ferguson. The "positive" way in which Ferguson paints the impact of the expansion of the British Empire, controversially suggesting that despite mass slaughter it was a "good thing" as it brought "culture" and "civilisation" to other areas of the globe is inextricably linked to his aim to legitimise US imperialism today!
You see how I linked a greater historiographical issue - history for politics - to my case study? Rather than just listing interpretations, this is how you can score those top marks :) Furthermore do not be afraid to tear these interpretations to shred. Rip apart a historians methodology/ideology/purpose/etc! Also it is imperative that you stick with the question (that may seem obvious but soooo many students fail to do this!), and make sure that you focus in particular upon the relevant debates, rather than just drifting off and writing just everything you know about the topic!
Hope this helps,
Susie
so, if I do it like below, should I be okay?:I'd actually structure it the opposite way!
historian --> historian’s view --> why historian is That way --> historiographical views --> question
(I just don’t have time to research all the historians and their methodologies :()
basically, I’m focusing on how there are two major schools of thought for Kennedy's early life. do you think that will be mutable enough for a question and stimuli? It’s got history, historiographical issues, and I can extend it back to motivations and causes for history's creation and use.
Quick question, is the annotated bibliography section of the major work meant to only include the three sources with their annotations, or does it encompass these three sources with their annotations as well as every other source used in the research? Thanks! :)You need all of the sources that you used to be in your bibliography (this includes all sources that you used, even the ones that are already footnoted/endnoted), however you only need to annotate three - so your second scenario is correct :)
You need all of the sources that you used to be in your bibliography (this includes all sources that you used, even the ones that are already footnoted/endnoted), however you only need to annotate three - so your second scenario is correct :)
How many paragraphs should we aim for in the 'What is History' section? :)Hmmm thats a very subjective question! I didn't really aim for a certain amount of paragraphs, but my essays were typically around 2-3. But when I say 2-3 paragraphs, I really mean 2-3 major points, with indented paragraphs throughout :) Hope this helps!
How do i format my part b notes? Im doing Napoleon. I usually dont use notes, but, i feel like a good tabled format would be effective in helping me remember the historian's debates. Does anyone have a table template i could use perhaps? :oHey! I used a table format last year to structure my part b notes :) Though I think that in the long run, the most effective form of study for history extension is past papers, tables are still awesome!
Can i show you the table format that i made? AND, lol, are you still able to mark my major essay/annotated bib cos my class got an extension 8) by monday, 3pm.Sure thing! Maybe attach a screenshot? And yes haha, feel free to post it in the marking thread and I'll have a look :)
How many paragraphs do we right for extension? Because my teacher said eight.There isn't a set amount! For my major work I had 2 paragraphs (so two main ideas, with sub-ideas indented). For my in class essays I ranged from 2-3 paragraphs :)
For the 'What is history' component, I feel so nervous about studying for it. I have most of my historians on tabled format already but i feel like im kinda putting it off. I know i basically asked the same question for modern, but does anyone have a bunch of past papers that i could use to build up my knowledge and remember my key arguments. Also, does anyone have good tips on how i should be approaching writing these essays because clearly they are different from the Modern/Ancient Essays. Tbh, i really just want to feel more confident when im writing so when i get into the exam, ill feel less nervous than i am feeling right now!!Hey bellerina!
Hey,I have! You can actually find my essay for that very question right here :)
Has anyone tackled the 2011 Question, 'To what extent do historians own history?' I need someone to help me break my arguments down because I dont know if it is right :(
Bellerina.
I have! You can actually find my essay for that very question right here :)
Defs can help you sort out your arguments - why don't you post them here?. Write up your arguments there and i'll get back to you as soon as I can (which will probably be tomorrow night due to the lectures tomorrow! eek how exciting!).
Hi, I'm really struggling to write a Section II essay on the JFK case study from the 2015 HSC paper, which had the question:Hey, I'm doing JFK too. What parts of JFK are you doing? My class is studying Cuba, Kennedy and Khrushchev and Indochina. :D :D
"...the past is fixed - no one can change what happened - but as the values of society change, the historians' depiction of the past changes also"
To what extent does this statement apply to the changing interpretations of historical debates in your case study?
My main issue is avoiding the cliche structure of just listing how the historians' depictions changed over time and relating this to the changing social values. It's so much easier to write by concepts like 'history as power' or 'the inherent bias of the historian' in Section I essays, and I can't seem to figure out how to group my arguments into that sort of thematic structure for Section II. Any advice would be really appreciated! :)
Hi, I'm really struggling to write a Section II essay on the JFK case study from the 2015 HSC paper, which had the question:
"...the past is fixed - no one can change what happened - but as the values of society change, the historians' depiction of the past changes also"
To what extent does this statement apply to the changing interpretations of historical debates in your case study?
My main issue is avoiding the cliche structure of just listing how the historians' depictions changed over time and relating this to the changing social values. It's so much easier to write by concepts like 'history as power' or 'the inherent bias of the historian' in Section I essays, and I can't seem to figure out how to group my arguments into that sort of thematic structure for Section II. Any advice would be really appreciated! :)
Hey, I'm doing JFK too. What parts of JFK are you doing? My class is studying Cuba, Kennedy and Khrushchev and Indochina. :D :DHey! Sorry I've been a bit neglectful of this thread for the past few days with the lectures :( - should be back to normal soon! :)
My teacher has said that this essay is a lot more like a modern/ancient essay then section one. :) :)
For my half yearly, I just kinda went through and did a paragraph on the historian's context/methodology, and another paragraph linking this to how it affected their interpretations of the event (for the camelot, revisionist and post-revisionist historians). You need to have links between the groups of historians as well. I know this might seem like the cliche structure at the moment but it works for me.
You can definitely still add these concepts in, especially one's like historians bias (Sorenson was Kennedy's speechwriter-obviously biased). I'm not really sure if you could thematically write for section 2. I guess you could do a paragraph combining, comparing and contrasting your three historians context,and then one on their methodologies, and break it into differing interpretations on the same event (e.g Operation Mongoose, or Cuban Missile Crisis).
I don't know if I have been helpful or just really confusing. The thing is I don't really know what should be the structure if one of these essays.
Susie: What was you structure for the section 2 essays?? :) :)
Hey Susie,I spent roughly 10 minutes planning (not including reading time), and 50 minutes writing! According to my teacher that is about what the markers are expecting, so they'll mark the essay as if it was meant to be done in 50 minutes rather than an hour! The lengths of my essays ranged, but were typically around 1300-1400 word mark :) So usually intro (which were always a bit longer than a modern/ancient intro), 2-3 paragraphs based around historiographical ideas and then my conclusion :)
How long did you spend planning for each essay in the exam, and how long did you spend writing?
Also, how long were each of your essays?
Thanks again :D :D
Hi! What is the best way to separate paragraphs in the what is history essay? I know not to make it chronological and to base it on the ideas within the source, so would we separate them into schools of thought such as history from below/marxist history, empiricism/Ranke/Richard Evans?My preferred method was to focus entirely on historiographical issues and ideas! So definitely some of the examples that you included (eg. impact of history from below), but also stuff like "is objectivity attainable?", "role of pop culture", "role of ideology" etc. etc. :)
Thanks!
When talking about the John Vincent, should i refer to this source, 'An Intelligent Person’s Guide to History' ?Yes definitely! Always best to refer specifically to the source (ie. the text itself) rather than just the historian/historiographer! (though of course feel free to still discuss the historian/historiographer more broadly afterwards)!
Yes definitely! Always best to refer specifically to the source (ie. the text itself) rather than just the historian/historiographer! (though of course feel free to still discuss the historian/historiographer more broadly afterwards)!
Haha, I really like this source! I could use this for other arguments too!!!. But, what is a good way to sum up this source? Like,in a sentence or something.Depends how you use it! I only used one extract from the source mainly - the part on social history. So if I had to sum up that extract, I'd say that the source deals with the nature of evidence, and to what extent evidence can distort the truth and provide a false narrative, which focuses upon certain members of society (rich, white, heterosexual, old, men!), over emphasising their significance over other groups in society (lower classes, women, non-white, etc.)!
Hey Susie,You will definitely need to know the names (and the names of their works) of historians for your essays, as you are required to integrate other sources! Quotes are absolutely fantastic, however what is even more necessary is a solid understanding of their argument, so much so that you are able to succinctly discuss their interpretations in your own words as well! In terms of making a more critical judgement, that is going to come down to making sure that you yourself have a strong opinion on the subject matter! I think one of the best ways to really demonstrate your judgement is to not only argue one side, but to mention the other side, and completely tear it to shreds. So don't just tell me why your side is correct, but why the other side is incorrect! Analyse their methodology, the ideology, what they include, what they exclude, etc. etc. :) Make sure that you are not just providing a shopping list of the different interpretations, and that you are critically analysing them!
I was just reading one of your essays up on the notes section and was wondering if we needed to memorise the names of the historian's works and some of their quotes. Also, I was reading through some of my Half Yearly feedback, and I needed to improve on making more of a critical judgement in section 1 (I think i've improved somewhat but can you give my some tips on this to get into the top band). :):)
Thanks heaps (again!!) :D :D
There are so many arguments that we can make in the 'What is History' section right. But, how do we remember so many of them so then we go into the exam, we'll be prepared for all of it. I want to focus on three historians, but I'm troubled on which ones I should choose.Hey! There are so many arguments, so many that you actually can't really study all of them. That is the nature of this subject, its so interpretive, and there aren't exactly set - "you have to go over this in class" work, that it's really more about finding that niche and sticking too it. My recommendation would be to have an opinion on these three questions:
Hey! There are so many arguments, so many that you actually can't really study all of them. That is the nature of this subject, its so interpretive, and there aren't exactly set - "you have to go over this in class" work, that it's really more about finding that niche and sticking too it. My recommendation would be to have an opinion on these three questions:Hey Susie,
- Can history be true?
- Does truth have to mean objective?
- What are the aims and purpose of history?
As they are fairly universal. Study your major work as well, because often that can come in very handy during the What is History section - in the HSC my essay covered similar issues to that I covered in my major work. Another good idea would be to create an argument table - so all the major debates and issues down one side, then one column for arguments for, and one for arguments against :) When it comes to picking sources, I'd pick three that cover different areas, so that you have more scope. I chose EH Carr (just cos he's like the history extension god, has something on everything), John Vincent (so I could incorporate the idea of evidence and social history) and Keith Jenkins (for postmodernism and the nature of truth).
Hope this helps!
Susie
Hey,AWESOMMMEEEE! Some great suggestions here Katie :) Especially love you flashcard idea - sounds like an awesome study method!
I would first look at the source and get the main ideas from it (usually about 3-4ish). I would highlight those points, summarise into my own words and say if I agree/disagree. I would then pick historians that would correspond with the main arguments of the source. So, in this way you can't really only choose three historians to study and memorise but have to know a lot more.
I know it's really hard to memorise these historians but I made a lot of flashcards, and for homework I have to do tables for the historians with headings such as the ones on the syllabus such as:
Who are the historians?
What are the purposes of history?
How has history been constructed and recorded over time?
Historian’s Interpretation on their subject
Why have approaches to history changed over time?
What impact has the historian had on historiography?
What are some of the criticisms of their approach?
Hope this helps :D :D
Susie beat me to it, but this is a different view-although her's sound really great!!
Hey Susie,The major debates/issues that I suggest having a look at are:
What are the major debates that we should know? Also, is it good to talk about our major work in the essay as i'm not really sure if they would know who my historians are? Who is John Vincent-is he someone that we need to know (my class hasn't studied him-is he important?)
The major debates/issues that I suggest having a look at are:Thanks heaps!! I'll definitely make some tables for those debates. I really loved my major so hopefully I'll be able to incorporate the historians somehow. For John Vincent there is an excerpt of An Intelligent Person’s Guide to History in the stage 6 source book of readings, is there any other of his works that you suggest me to read. :)
- Can history be objective? (so empiricists v. relativists v. postmodernists)
- Should history be objective? (empricists v. postmodernists)
- Popular history v. Academic History? or Public v. Private history?
- Social History (pros and cons)
- Role of imagination
- Role of popular culture
- Nature of evidence - only official documents?
Those kinda things :) I'm sure you can think of a tonne more as well! It is DEFINITELY a great idea to talk about your major work - it doesn't matter if they don't know about your historians, YOU know about them, which means you'll be able to provide a super sophisticated and thorough analysis of them + you'll be going beyond the conventional, seen-them-all-before historians like Herodotus and Von Ranke. Some schools may study John Vincent, but not every school! My school didn't, I just read some of his works - he's a really great source, deals with the nature of evidence and social history really well!
Thanks heaps!! I'll definitely make some tables for those debates. I really loved my major so hopefully I'll be able to incorporate the historians somehow. For John Vincent there is an excerpt of An Intelligent Person’s Guide to History in the stage 6 source book of readings, is there any other of his works that you suggest me to read. :)Awesome! I pretty much just stuck with that - that extract is a beast, without it I would not have got the mark that I did for my final exam, as I based my entire argument around his discussion upon the nature of evidence, and how it "flagrantly distorts" ;) His book is great though - if you have time I definitely recommend flicking through the full thing! But if not, the extract will still serve you nicely!
Awesome! I pretty much just stuck with that - that extract is a beast, without it I would not have got the mark that I did for my final exam, as I based my entire argument around his discussion upon the nature of evidence, and how it "flagrantly distorts" ;) His book is great though - if you have time I definitely recommend flicking through the full thing! But if not, the extract will still serve you nicely!Just realised they have it at my local library and i'm so happy (they literally have 2 books on historiography and this is one). I'm such a history nerd. Will definitely flick through the whole thing! :D :D
Susie
My preferred method was to focus entirely on historiographical issues and ideas! So definitely some of the examples that you included (eg. impact of history from below), but also stuff like "is objectivity attainable?", "role of pop culture", "role of ideology" etc. etc. :)
The examples you used in this are so relevant to the essay I am trying to write at the moment, you just made it so much easier for me! Thank you!No worries! So glad you found it useful :D
Hi Susie!
I was just wondering with Question 2 and the Case Study, is there a specific way to answer the question, is it the same as Q1 just with the debate incorporated or is it just discussing the historians and their points of view??
Because so far, I've been taught for question 2 to just write about the historians and their point of view and I am a bit unsure how I would incorporate 'what is history' ideas with it.
Hi Susie!Hey! I wrote my Section II essays very similarly to a 'What is History' essay, just paying a particular focus to the historiographical issues that impacted upon Western Imperialism (my case study). So I'd usually centre each paragraph around a particular histioriographical issue, such as conflict between academic and popular history, to what extent history is written for the present, role of ideology, etc. etc, linking the historians of Western Imperialism throughout, and analysing their perspectives specifically, rather than just incorporating any historian or historiographer like in Section I :) So I'd discuss the historians views, in relation to the impact of said historiographical issue :D
I was just wondering with Question 2 and the Case Study, is there a specific way to answer the question, is it the same as Q1 just with the debate incorporated or is it just discussing the historians and their points of view??
Because so far, I've been taught for question 2 to just write about the historians and their point of view and I am a bit unsure how I would incorporate 'what is history' ideas with it.
OooohhhIt'll specify in the question how many debates they want you to discuss - as far as I'm aware it's usually two, so you'll want to have a solid understanding of both!!
Sorry but I'm going to add onto your question hehe, for question 2 my school studied two debatable arguments i guess you can say, if I just write on one thesis is that alright?
Thanks
Bigsweetpotato Farm
and thanks Jess for letting me piggyback onto your post :D
It'll specify in the question how many debates they want you to discuss - as far as I'm aware it's usually two, so you'll want to have a solid understanding of both!!
Hope this helps!
Susie
Alright thanks!What do you mean by "classify"? Do you mean what do you discuss in each paragraph? Me personally, I focused on greater historiographical issues that impacted my topic, so a paragraph on postmodernism and how it has both expanded discussion, but also distorted the supposedly central aim of history - truth, and then a paragraph on social history, and how it broadens the discipline, while also distorting it through legitimising imagination and a historical tool of enquiry!
For the major work, how do you actually classify each paragraph? Cause I have my paragraphs categorised for each different historian analysed but they seem...decades long ;)
Any suggestions?
Bigsweetpotato Farm
Mod Edit: Merged posts :)
What do you mean by "classify"? Do you mean what do you discuss in each paragraph? Me personally, I focused on greater historiographical issues that impacted my topic, so a paragraph on postmodernism and how it has both expanded discussion, but also distorted the supposedly central aim of history - truth, and then a paragraph on social history, and how it broadens the discipline, while also distorting it through legitimising imagination and a historical tool of enquiry!
Hope this helps, sorry if I didn't understand your question!
Susie
(also 100 posts on this thread now wooo!!!)
Yea I don't understand myself either HAHAHAHAAh, so it's not about breaking up your ideas, but more that they don't want to read just one long slab or text? I'd probably break them up when you start a new point, even if its part of the same general idea. The way that I did this last year was that I had a line break for every new idea (so I had two), and the an indent for every new point within said idea :) So I had to "main paragraphs", but each paragraph was broken up into smaller sections, distinguished through indents :) Is that kinda what your teacher meant?
I'm having trouble breaking up my paragraphs because my teacher said it was too long that's all, and I don't know how to break it up? Like should I start a new paragraph when I change my interpretation or how?
Ah, so it's not about breaking up your ideas, but more that they don't want to read just one long slab or text? I'd probably break them up when you start a new point, even if its part of the same general idea. The way that I did this last year was that I had a line break for every new idea (so I had two), and the an indent for every new point within said idea :) So I had to "main paragraphs", but each paragraph was broken up into smaller sections, distinguished through indents :) Is that kinda what your teacher meant?
Yep! I think that's exactly what she meant because the writing seemed too long~so if I was starting to discuss the how the historians interpretation was limited instead of following before which was how the perspective was well backed up and researched would I break it up there? even if I am discussing the same historian' s work?That sounds like a logical break point to me! :)
Hi Susie! I read somewhere before that you primarily prepared for History Extension essays by doing past papers; would you recommend doing this under timed conditions or writing essay plans to different questions? Thanks :)Hey! For history extension, I wrote most of my practice essays open book/not under timed conditions. This meant that I'd be able to do a bit of research before and during answering the question, thus increasing my arsenal of arguments I could take into the exam :) However I definitely believe it would be worthwhile doing some under exam conditions as well, just so you can get used to feel of the exam - how long you have to write, how good you are at recalling arguments on the spot, etc. etc. I think essay plans are a great idea as well - I also recommend practicing analysing sources, as integrating the source is such a key component to a history extension essay.
how do you write a final judgement without it sounding repetitive from the analysis in the midst of the essay. I feel like my project is just sooo rambly even though its pretty concise but my own judgement is absolutely necessary and i dont know how to make it flow :/hey! It's kinda difficult to say without looking at your essay, however the way that I typically did this would be to use words like "thus" and "therefore". So (analysis), thus it is further evident that (judgement). Or "(judgement) is reinforced by (analysis)". Does that answer your question?
What would the purpose of Plutarch's and Aristotle's writing be?
sounds like a silly question but I don't want to simply assume it was to inform, and I can't find anything that properly answers this :/
Thanks :)
That sounds like a logical break point to me! :)
In regards to your second question, unfortunately I didn't study Plutarch or Aristotle that closely - however I'm pretty sure (if I remember correctly from Ancient) Aristotle was Athenian, so if you're looking at his writings on Sparta, there will definitely be an ulterior motive behind his writings, as the two groups hated each other, and the Athenians were consistently emphasising their superiority through their works. Hopefully someone else will be able to verify this + provide a more detailed response :)Yep, Aristotle was from pro Athenian. He was intrigued by the political arrangements of Sparta and treated the Spartan system with a mixture of deep respect and severe criticism. He analysed the reasons for the decline of Sparta and exaggerated the features of Spartan life he believed were responsible (e.g the role of women).
Yep, Aristotle was from pro Athenian. He was intrigued by the political arrangements of Sparta and treated the Spartan system with a mixture of deep respect and severe criticism. He analysed the reasons for the decline of Sparta and exaggerated the features of Spartan life he believed were responsible (e.g the role of women).
Also, Plutarch was Greek and he was a priest of Apollo. He was very pro Sparta and carried the Spartan mirage.
Hope this helps! :)
hey! It's kinda difficult to say without looking at your essay, however the way that I typically did this would be to use words like "thus" and "therefore". So (analysis), thus it is further evident that (judgement). Or "(judgement) is reinforced by (analysis)". Does that answer your question?
In regards to your second question, unfortunately I didn't study Plutarch or Aristotle that closely - however I'm pretty sure (if I remember correctly from Ancient) Aristotle was Athenian, so if you're looking at his writings on Sparta, there will definitely be an ulterior motive behind his writings, as the two groups hated each other, and the Athenians were consistently emphasising their superiority through their works. Hopefully someone else will be able to verify this + provide a more detailed response :)
Susie
Hellothat. is. so. weird. Compulsory business? How strange.
Just wondering how many units history extension is worth?
Turns out my school does enforce at least one business subject...which sucks...but going to push for otherwise, just need to know if history extension is one or two units?
Thanks
that. is. so. weird. Compulsory business? How strange.
History extension is worth one unit :)
Hey, I was too late to submit my history extension essay for marking (since it will be locked during the trial period :( )Sure thing Maraos! Just submit them here. However I won't be able to get it today due to the Q&A this afternoon - I should have time tomorrow though :)
Would it be possible to just upload some parts of my essay for checking/advice, Its due this monday and unfortunately i was bogged down with my design and technology major work all this week so I didn't get time to submit my essay for marking on ATAR notes.
Sure thing Maraos! Just submit them here. However I won't be able to get it today due to the Q&A this afternoon - I should have time tomorrow though :)Thanks so much Susie :D , and no worries get back to me whenever you can :D
Hey Susie,No worries Maraos! You've been such a positive contributor to the history threads for so long, that I am more than happy to make an exception and mark your response. I've attached my feedback - with the knowledge that it is due tomorrow, i haven't made any major suggestions (not that I really had any to make anyway)! Overall I think this is a really good essay Maraos! I definitely think that it was a good think that we changed your question - this is just so much more historiographical. In terms of the chronological structure, though I wouldn't recommend it, as your teacher is enforcing it, and they are marking it, then it definitely won't impact you negatively.
sorry this took so long I just wanted to make sure it was pretty much done before i sent it.
I understand that the marking has been closed :( unfortunately i was too late, attached is my entire essay if you could just read it and let me know if it sounds semi-good that would be great.
Also in regards to our last conversation about my ext history topic, I had to change my question (once again) because my teacher thought that tackling 'the historiographical implications of popular history' was too big. my new question is essentially the same thing but a little more specific.
Also my teacher essentially forced everyone to write in a chronological fashion (which I know you said i should steer away). So I had to write my essay in that form.
Hopefully the essay isn't too bad because it is due tomorrow :-\ :-\
any advice/feedback would be great :D
Thanks! ;D
No worries Maraos! You've been such a positive contributor to the history threads for so long, that I am more than happy to make an exception and mark your response. I've attached my feedback - with the knowledge that it is due tomorrow, i haven't made any major suggestions (not that I really had any to make anyway)! Overall I think this is a really good essay Maraos! I definitely think that it was a good think that we changed your question - this is just so much more historiographical. In terms of the chronological structure, though I wouldn't recommend it, as your teacher is enforcing it, and they are marking it, then it definitely won't impact you negatively.
Awesome work!! And congratulations - you're finally done!!!!!!!!
Thankyou soo much Susie ;DAww absolutely no worries!! But really, this was all you. I may have helped a bit, but YOU wrote this essay - you are the reason it is great, and you should be hella proud :) Definitely check back to let us know the mark! Super keen :)
I was feeling really concerned since I didn't show my teachers enough drafts these last 2 weeks, but your positive words have definitely made me feel better haha :D
Can't wait to remove the weight of my shoulders and submit it.
Thanks so much for your help, I literally wouldn't have survived the major work without ATAR notes and your guidance :D
I'll be sure to let you know my mark :D
Hello again :DNah don't worry too much about that. It varies quite a bit. I had over 80 footnotes, the girl who came first in the HTA essay prize had about 40 :)
Just a quick question,
I've only got about 39 footnotes for my major work and some of my other classmates have over 50.
Do you think I need more? Like would more be considered a stronger response?
thanks!
Nah don't worry too much about that. It varies quite a bit. I had over 80 footnotes, the girl who came first in the HTA essay prize had about 40 :)Awesome, thanks for the help!
Hello again (sorry i keep spamming this thread haha ;D )ahaha, no worries! Everything looks fine to me :) I also included copies of the various articles I used, and drafts of my work, but that is not essential as far as I am aware - just something to add if you can/feel like it :)
Just a very quick question/check. My process log for the major work is due in like a few hours (gotta submit it online) i was just wondering if this layout/information for the process log is good? No need to read all of it, I just wanna quickly get it checked before i submit it.
Thanks!
Hey, I'm a year 12 student doing Ancient and Extension History. My marks for Extension is around 42/50. I'm freaking about a bit for trials because I've been told that I need to remember heaps of historians quotes for both question 1 and question 2. I got 41/50 in the half yearly without really quoting any historians directly. Is it vital that I learn specific quotes from historians? and if so, what historians would you recommend for the "What is history" question? (Thucydides is my expertise when it comes to historians).Hey,
Hey, I'm a year 12 student doing Ancient and Extension History. My marks for Extension is around 42/50. I'm freaking about a bit for trials because I've been told that I need to remember heaps of historians quotes for both question 1 and question 2. I got 41/50 in the half yearly without really quoting any historians directly. Is it vital that I learn specific quotes from historians? and if so, what historians would you recommend for the "What is history" question? (Thucydides is my expertise when it comes to historians).Welcome to ATAR notes and probably the best thread on the entire forum ;D ;D haha
Hey, I'm a year 12 student doing Ancient and Extension History. My marks for Extension is around 42/50. I'm freaking about a bit for trials because I've been told that I need to remember heaps of historians quotes for both question 1 and question 2. I got 41/50 in the half yearly without really quoting any historians directly. Is it vital that I learn specific quotes from historians? and if so, what historians would you recommend for the "What is history" question? (Thucydides is my expertise when it comes to historians).Ayo,
Hey guys,Hey, I'll try to give you a quick overview of how history has been constructed over time. :):
I'm on panic mode for Extension. Can anyone give me a general outline of the rise of new sources throughout history?
Thanks heaps.
Hey, I'll try to give you a quick overview of how history has been constructed over time. :):
Herotodus:mainly oral sources and prose, no set method.
Bede-Chrisitan history, geological, named sources.
Gibbon-footnotes, used irony.
Macaulay-Direct speech, slavery & bibliographies, optimistic history, wrote in literary style.
Von Ranke-Used Venetian ambassadors, trace God's will through history.
Marx-Economic history, communist based, philosophy.
Annales-multi-disiplined (the use of maps, science, geology, etc. to tell things about the past), non linear, total history.
Carr-scientific, fishmongers analogy, history is interpretation.
Public history-museums, film, television, commemorations, radio.
Foucault-changing concepts over time, archeological method.
Schama-omits footnotes, imagined dialogue.
White-history is fiction,narrative,tropes,figurative language.
Hopefully this helps!
If you have any questions definitely feel free to ask! :)
Omg, you are a lifesaver! Thanks so much! :)Aw, Thanks! Really glad it was helpful! :D
Hey Susie! I've seen that you have mentioned a lot to not write in a chronological form when writing a historiographical essay. Can you explain why? It's just I have always done a chronological form - Paragraph on Herodotus, then Thucydides, then Bede, then Von Ranke, then post modernist historians etc. and I was never told to do other wise by my teachers and still got a pretty good mark.This was something that from day one, my history extension teacher told us to avoid. Reason being, writing a chronology isn't writing historiography - it is writing the history of historiography. It's saying "this is what historiography was like at this point, then this point, then this point", rather than demonstrating your own views and opinions, and critically evaluating the shifts in historiography. It is also it rather limiting, in that writing a chronology means that the key debate and issue that most people will be dealing with is purely the role of context - which yes, is super important, but doesn't necessarily leave much room to discuss in depth say the debate between public and private history, or the impact of popular culture etc. Furthermore, it is very easy for a chronology to appear as a pre-prepared essay. Many people end up relying on this structure, and then try to apply say Herodotus and the Ancient historians to everything, even when they may not actually be applicable to the question or the source.
George
Thanks for the feedback Susie! The question in my half yearly for question 1 was about how over time, forms of historical communication has significantly changed and advanced and the effect it has on the way history has been constructed and recorded over time (which I scored 21/25). I used a pretty strict chronological order on this question because I felt it was the right way to do it in contrast to a practise question I did on the conflict between academic and popular history in which I found that writing a chronological order was more difficult. Would you say that it really depends on the question given and the key debates/ideas discussed in the given source?Though I have no doubt that you wrote a fantastic essay (21/25 is a really good mark, well done!), even in that instance I personally would shy away from using a chronological structure, for the reasons that I outlined, and would instead, rather than focus on the different periods of time and explain how they were distinct, instead focus on what actually contributed to change - so still focusing on ideas and concepts, rather than the history of historiography.. So rather than structure that essay according to the different schools and periods, I would probably structure it this way (hypothetically, if the source dealt with these issues).
Hey!!! ;DDO IT, DO IT, DO IT (peer pressure chant). It's your engagement, not giftedness in a subject that should determine whether or not you pick it up. If it turns out not to be for you, you can always drop it and no harm done (this won't happen). And if you're still uncertain, you can always talk to your history teacher, who should give a similar response. Honestly, its a very different kind of history to the ancient or modern you do; there's far more freedom and it is way less content-bound.
This is a random question....
but.. how do i know if i have the ability to do history ext???
what sort of marks should I be getting in say modern to be able to tell whether i can do it??? just on average???
i guess it comes down to hard work, but the skills have got to be there, don't they??? :D
thanks ;D
To what extent is the conflict between academic and popular history?Hey, not sure if my answer will be as viable as Susie's, but I'm sure she'll respond to you soon. I'll try give you some examples rather than structure (which is not my speciality): '300' is a great example of popular history, but in a "vs" scenario, i'm not sure that Herodotus is a prime example of academic history - I'm pretty sure his works were a shoddy (from our perspective) narrative: many call him "Father of History, Father of Lies".
I'm having trouble in what specifics to argue in this question. I've planned out a bit of a "vs" structure where I take an academic example of history and contrast it against popular (Herodotus' histories vs the movie "300") showing the difference between there aims but I don't entirely understand the "conflict" part of the question. Is there another approach you would take on the question? Am I doing it wrong?
George
Hey!!! ;DHey! As mitchello said, DEFINITELY give history extension a go. There isn't a subject that changed my worldview and opinions more than that subject, it's insane how impactful it was. In terms of skills, I really think it is a subject that everyone walks into as a "clean slate" so to speak. Yes there are the basic skills that will help; being able to write an essay, sophisticated use of language, ability to think conceptually, etc. etc., but for the most part, everyone is thrown into the deep end - no one is "naturally" good at history extension. With that in mind, I don't believe there is a mark that you should reach in your two unit history course that will justify you doing history extension. Though yes, if you were getting a band 2 in modern I might be hesitant to suggest doing extension, but that would more so be cause it appears you aren't very passionate about the subject, rather than a comment on your 'ability' to do well - because history extension relies on passion. Any subject that requires a major work does! You need to be passionate in order to put in the amount of effort required to succeed - because I would BS ya, the subject is hard and requires a lot of time and energy to do well. However, with that being said, I do believe that the subject load is still manageable - I studied 12 units last year, including Drama which basically means two more major works, but I never felt history extension to be a burden :)
This is a random question....
but.. how do i know if i have the ability to do history ext???
what sort of marks should I be getting in say modern to be able to tell whether i can do it??? just on average???
i guess it comes down to hard work, but the skills have got to be there, don't they??? :D
thanks ;D
Hey! As mitchello said, DEFINITELY give history extension a go. There isn't a subject that changed my worldview and opinions more than that subject, it's insane how impactful it was. In terms of skills, I really think it is a subject that everyone walks into as a "clean slate" so to speak. Yes there are the basic skills that will help; being able to write an essay, sophisticated use of language, ability to think conceptually, etc. etc., but for the most part, everyone is thrown into the deep end - no one is "naturally" good at history extension. With that in mind, I don't believe there is a mark that you should reach in your two unit history course that will justify you doing history extension. Though yes, if you were getting a band 2 in modern I might be hesitant to suggest doing extension, but that would more so be cause it appears you aren't very passionate about the subject, rather than a comment on your 'ability' to do well - because history extension relies on passion. Any subject that requires a major work does! You need to be passionate in order to put in the amount of effort required to succeed - because I would BS ya, the subject is hard and requires a lot of time and energy to do well. However, with that being said, I do believe that the subject load is still manageable - I studied 12 units last year, including Drama which basically means two more major works, but I never felt history extension to be a burden :)Thanks Susie and mitchello!! ;D
Susie
To what extent is the conflict between academic and popular history?Hey! So to add onto mitchello's already fantastic response (you're absolutely killing it man), here is my two cents on this question :) When I look at this question, particularly the conflict aspect, immediately my brain jumps beyond just the differences between the two, but the implications of these differences. The conflict arises through the dominance of one form of history over the other.
I'm having trouble in what specifics to argue in this question. I've planned out a bit of a "vs" structure where I take an academic example of history and contrast it against popular (Herodotus' histories vs the movie "300") showing the difference between there aims but I don't entirely understand the "conflict" part of the question. Is there another approach you would take on the question? Am I doing it wrong?
George
Thanks Susie and mitchello!! ;DI dropped 2 unit maths to pick up history extension, and I don't regret that decision for a second ;)
my history and english teachers are both encouraging me to do it so... ;)
i am definitely keen to give it a go, but I'll probably have to drop a subject so that I'm not doing 14 units!!! :P
Alright so how do I prepare for the HSC exam for this subjectHey GorgGorgenson!
Hey...I've just chosen to do Extension History for next year (at the end of yr 11 now). Our teacher has given us the option of studying Napoleon OR JFK, and was just wondering if anyone could give some insight into these two case studies? Or if their are any outstanding reasons to chose one over the other? Thanks :)Hey tay.j! Unfortunately I didn't study either of those options, so i can't really say much here, however I know a few others have so hold on tight!
Hi Susie,Hey Carina! Yeah, I wouldn't recommend a chronological structure for a few reasons. 1. You're more likely to write a history of historiography, rather than actual historiography, 2. it's not very universal (for example sometimes the ancient historians aren't the best sources to be discussing for a question), 3. it often makes it harder to integrate the the source, and 4. it makes it A LOT harder to incorporate your own voice! Thematic structures are a lot better, and alleviate these problems.
Our teacher has recommended chronological history extension essays all year, for which my whole class has been receiving reasonably high marks for internally, leading me to believe that this was the way to go about things. Reading some notes from the marking centre and posts in this thread, I've realised the for the HSC this probably isnt the best way to go. Any tips on how to transfer my essay from a chronological structure to a thematic structure?
Thanks so much!
Hey...I've just chosen to do Extension History for next year (at the end of yr 11 now). Our teacher has given us the option of studying Napoleon OR JFK, and was just wondering if anyone could give some insight into these two case studies? Or if their are any outstanding reasons to chose one over the other? Thanks :)Hey,
Hey Susie,Hey Maddy! No worries :) I don't want either of you to stress out btw - you are definitely not the only students in the state to have been taught to write a chronology. However, it is not a E3/4 structure, and that is was we should be aiming for right!
I'm also in the same class as Carina and I'm kinda confused about not structuring the essay chronologically. So with those hypothetical themes that you say relate to the source do you just have a bank of ideas to rely on so you can adapt to the source when you're in the exam? like how do you prepare these ideas if you may get a really weird question that may be specific to communication? Also, my class all have about 3-4 debates/ideologies do you think that's too many? Sorry just like overall confused and with the exam in a month I just want to get on top of it now.
Thanks so much in advance :)
Hi again,I unfortunately don't have any as I didn't study this topic, though I always thought it sounded super interesting! Are you liking it so far?
Just wondering if anyone has a Historicity of Jesus Christ exemplar essay they'd be willing to share?
Thanks! ;)
I think the most devastating moment in my year as a HIX student ... was when I remembered to submit my project for the competition the DAY AFTER applications closed. I got full marks for it too! So angry at myself :'( :'( :'( :'(Oh no! That sucks :( I was lucky that my teacher pretty much organised everything for me, so I didn't need to worry about it. Congratulations on an AMAZING result though, full marks that's incredible! Would love to give it a read sometime :)
Did anyone else forget to submit it? Who, unlike me, was organised and didn't forget?
I think the most devastating moment in my year as a HIX student ... was when I remembered to submit my project for the competition the DAY AFTER applications closed. I got full marks for it too! So angry at myself :'( :'( :'( :'(Oh, that really sucks! :(. Kinda the same happened to me. I got first in my class for the project (not 100% though that is an amazing mark ;D), and I was really excited to put it in. Except with trials and all the end of school stuff going on, I completely forgot about filling in any paperwork or anything. My teacher been pretty busy as well so she didn't organise anything (it wasn't actually brought up a lot at all). So, it was kinda my fault for not getting everything together or reminding her about it, but it's still pretty annoying.
Did anyone else forget to submit it? Who, unlike me, was organised and didn't forget?
Hello, I was just wondering if anyone has any ideas about contemporary issues or topics I could mention for my question one essay. Bit stuck on the topics i should incorporate into my essay.Hey, here are a couple that I can think of off the top of my head!
Hey Susie,100% don't even try to memorise a history extension essay, or create an "adaptable" structure. It's just not possible, because you have to integrate the sources to such a significant extent, making it really easy to spot those who attempted to go in with even a semi-prepared response. I know this is probably not the answer you want, but its the truth aha. That means its really important that you go in with quite a few debates/issues up your sleeve, that relate to the various aspects of the syllabus :) Though of course most sources can be related to the broader issues like "objectivity" and "purpose" and stuff like that, I still don't believe its a good idea to go into an exam with a predetermined stucture, and you should instead structure your response around the issues presented within the prescribed source :)
I'm making the conversion from chronological to thematic and I'm not sure how pre-structured or reactive my essay should be. I currently have a few thematic debates (objectivity and truth, purposes of history and historical communication), and within them the historians, but those are about it.
I guess my question is, as an exemplar would you recommend I increase the number of 'themes' I could draw from, or is that not really necessary and that the themes themselves are flexible enough to meet the source or question.
Thanks, Jordan
Ah okay thanks,Hey,
I guess my follow up question then would be, how many of these ideas should I be floating before the exam and how many should I be working into a response :) I imagine it would differ somewhat between sources but If im only using the 1 or 2 ideas which are touched in the source, my essay would be on the thin side in terms of word count.
Thanks Again, still just playing with the new essay format/how to adapt to questions
Jordan
Hi Suzie,Hey! As far as I was taught there was no difference, however I'm not an expert, so don't just take my word for it!
Just wondering about the differences between the linguistic turn and Postmodernism (if there is any).
Thanks!
Hi again,Hey :) Websites such as Ancestry.com and Historypin.org could be used to demonstrate how evidence has evolved to become easily accessible online and can now be provided from sources that aren't necessarily moderated by historians. You could also argue that social media like Facebook and Twitter are used to preserve history in a certain way, such as the JFK official Twitter that reinforces his image as the 'ideal president' by regularly posting articles about his achievements and drawing comparisons between him and contemporary politicians. Hope this helps!
Just wondering if you know of any good sources or websites where I can find information on the changing nature of evidence?
Thanks!
Hey guys!Hey! Welcome to the History Extension family - I'm sure you'll find it intriguing it if you already have an interest in history :) I was super nervous about the course at first too, so I can definitely understand where you're coming from. I remember going through some past papers at the beginning of Year 12 and being utterly dumbfounded because it was like nothing I had ever studied before. Our teacher made it super clear to us from the very start that History Extension could even be compared to a University course because of the level of engagement and research it requires. As terrifying as that seemed at first, I quickly came to love the subject.
So I decided to take Extension History (I love history too much!) but just looking at the syllabus and talking to some Extension History students at my school makes the subject look kinda intimidating, especially with that massive Major Work. My question is: what is it like doing the subject? And what are some tips on coming up with topics for the Major Work?
Thanks :)
Hey! Welcome to the History Extension family - I'm sure you'll find it intriguing it if you already have an interest in history :) I was super nervous about the course at first too, so I can definitely understand where you're coming from. I remember going through some past papers at the beginning of Year 12 and being utterly dumbfounded because it was like nothing I had ever studied before. Our teacher made it super clear to us from the very start that History Extension could even be compared to a University course because of the level of engagement and research it requires. As terrifying as that seemed at first, I quickly came to love the subject.Hello there! Thank you for your long yet informative response! I really appreciate it :) But yes, I have heard from people that Extension History is like giving us a taste of what uni is like but I never understood how. Even though I don't know much about this subject, I'm really excited to start learning about historical debates and studying history as a concept!
To answer your question about what History Extension is like, I find that the most distinctive quality of the subject is that it gives you a lot of freedom in terms of your research. Particularly in relation to the 'What is History' component of the course, even though you're being taught examples of historiographical issues in class, you can pick and choose which ones you find most interesting and you can even find your own examples of contemporary issues to use as evidence in your essays (as long as its relevant, of course). So, as a sneak peak into the Daily Life of a History Extension Student™, you'll study a lot of different historians, historical debates and historiographical concepts, but these won't culminate in a singular, conclusive answer to the question 'What is History?', rather they'll equip you with the 'building blocks' to develop arguments about how/why history is made and changes, as well as how super important it is. But just trust me that you're going to learn about so many different aspects of history that you're bound to find some that spark your interest.
And on the topic of personal interest, your major work should be fundamentally influenced by exactly that. Your topic will probably change significantly throughout your time working on the project, but focus on ideas - unanswered questions or ongoing debates about 'what is history' - that you find challenging and genuinely wish to answer. In my case, I stumbled through a lot of different topics - from the lost civilisation of the Khmer Empire to the Black Death to the British Monarchy to the six wives of Henry VIII - and this went on for about three months, until I discovered an interest in the way that historical fiction perpetuated stories about Anne Boleyn. From there I built a thesis about the role of fiction in history, using Anne Boleyn and other relevant historical novels/films as case studies, and managed to successfully change my teacher's perspective on the legitimacy of fiction as a historiographical tool because I was determined to expand beyond the simple idea that history is objective fact and historical fiction is romanticised mythology. Aside from making sure you find ideas that genuinely interest you, I'd recommend looking at the works of past winners of the HTA Extension Essay Prize. Fair warning: these essays can be extremely intimidating and definitely freaked me out when I first read them because they're at a level of depth and sophistication that I can only compare to University-level research, but they really helped me to understand how to effectively investigate historiographical ideas without getting caught up in a narrative about the past.
Ultimately, History Extension can definitely seem intimidating because it isn't taught like any other subject. But like any other subject, juggling the major work with everything else will become manageable and even enjoyable if you can understand and develop an interest in what the course is really asking for. I'm extremely glad that I chose History Extension, and I hope you enjoy it! Hope this helps (and sorry for rambling) :)
Hello there! Thank you for your long yet informative response! I really appreciate it :) But yes, I have heard from people that Extension History is like giving us a taste of what uni is like but I never understood how. Even though I don't know much about this subject, I'm really excited to start learning about historical debates and studying history as a concept!That's so great to hear! I don't really think anyone really goes into this subject knowing exactly what to expect, but you seem like you're ready to explore it nonetheless. I'm sure you'll succeed in this subject :)
Hi, for Section 2 of the paper I noticed that the 2015 notes from the marking centre state, "developing a more nuanced approach which demonstrates reasoned and logical judgements, by showing the link between what societal values were at the time of the historian writing, and whether this influenced the historian’s perspective." Any tips on how to address this if the main historians in the debate (specifically for myself, that is the historicity of Jesus Christ) are all living in very similar time periods?Hey! :D
Thanks!
Hey! I've just been curious about how long History Extension essays usually end up being for other people. Since you sort of have an hour for each, are you expected to write more than the basic 1000-1200 words that are anticipated in other subjects (e.g. in 40 minute english essays)? Or is it normal for people to spend maybe 10-15 minutes reading and analysing the source. Would love to hear anyone's thoughts/experience :)Hey! So as a general rule they probably expect you to write at least a bit more than you would for a modern/ancient essay, however according to my teacher they mark the exam as if you had 50 minutes to write - the expectation is that you will spend at least 10 minutes outside of reading time going over the source, and planning your response. However, my teacher used to say that extension markers are generally care a lot less about length than 2u history markers. Whereas if you wrote a modern essay which appeared to be less than 1000 words, you *could* be penalised, for extension, your argument is so much more important. We had a girl at my school in the year above who had a condition which limited her ability to write (no idea why she wasn't given a scribe, but oh well). So near the end of exams, she just physically couldn't write enough. Despite her history marks across modern, ancient and extension remaining consistently the same, she received a mid range band 5 for modern and ancient, and a high E4 for extension, and my teacher puts that down to her just not being able to write enough in the other subjects.
Hey! So as a general rule they probably expect you to write at least a bit more than you would for a modern/ancient essay, however according to my teacher they mark the exam as if you had 50 minutes to write - the expectation is that you will spend at least 10 minutes outside of reading time going over the source, and planning your response. However, my teacher used to say that extension markers are generally care a lot less about length than 2u history markers. Whereas if you wrote a modern essay which appeared to be less than 1000 words, you *could* be penalised, for extension, your argument is so much more important. We had a girl at my school in the year above who had a condition which limited her ability to write (no idea why she wasn't given a scribe, but oh well). So near the end of exams, she just physically couldn't write enough. Despite her history marks across modern, ancient and extension remaining consistently the same, she received a mid range band 5 for modern and ancient, and a high E4 for extension, and my teacher puts that down to her just not being able to write enough in the other subjects.Yeah, I thought around 10 minutes of analysing the source would be a reasonable amount of time. In my Trials I found myself just trying to blast through the paper without realising that we had so much time left! I had like 5 minutes for each section to just go through each essay and fix things since I went a little too fast haha. Thanks as always for the help, Susie! :D
Hope this helps!
Susie
Hey guys!Ahh I was given a sheet in class with the source from Section I of the 2015 paper but the picture's file size is too large to be posted here! I'd still definitely recommend asking your teacher if they have access to the sources because mine seemed to be able to find them for us. Sorry for not being much help, but I hope you find them :)
So I'm just scanning through the NESA Exam Pack page for History Extension and most of the sources I've found (well the 2014-2016 papers) are copyrighted. Do you know any other places where I can find recent History Extension exams where the sources aren't awaiting copyright?
Thanks :)
Ahh I was given a sheet in class with the source from Section I of the 2015 paper but the picture's file size is too large to be posted here! I'd still definitely recommend asking your teacher if they have access to the sources because mine seemed to be able to find them for us. Sorry for not being much help, but I hope you find them :)Ahh it's ok :) It's not very urgent anyway since History Extension classes officially start next week for me (omg I'm so excited!). I just wanted to familiarise myself with the type of essay questions and sources we'll be getting in exams. Thanks for the tip though!
Heya!!! ;DHey!! Hope your enjoying Extension so far! ;D
Just starting Extension History ;) and was wondering what the best structure for the notes would be?? For the case study and what is history?...please and thank you!!! :D
also...if anyone has any good ideas for a major work I would be interested....some of my thoughts are 911, war photographers, impact of poets on history, Manhattan Project....i really don't know what to do as it has never been done at our school before....
really appreciate any ideas or tips...thanks so much!!! ;D
Hey!! Hope your enjoying Extension so far! ;DHey katie!!! ;D
For my what is history notes, I made tables on each of the historians and summarised information into columns on some of the syllabus questions:
Who are the historians (biographical details/context)
What are the purposes of history? (Aims and purposes of their work)
How has history been constructed over time (type of history, form,etc.)
Historians interpretation on subject
Why have approaches to history changed over time (reasons for changing interpretation and approach to history)
What impact has the historian had on historiography,
and What are some of the criticisms of their approach.
I also made some of this into flashcards as well later on in the year (as well as flashcards on different historical terms I wanted to remember).
I didn't do as much for my case study, but I summarised some of the main points (name/date of book, methodology, context, interpretations) and put them on flashcards that I've been going over.
In terms of your major all of those topics sound really interesting! I'd choose something you will enjoy as you'll be spending a lot of time on it. Maybe, you could spend a bit of time researching a few different topics and then see what one you find more interesting or has more information available? What one are you leaning towards at the moment?
Hope this helps! :D
Hey katie!!! ;DHey!
Thanks so much for that VERY, VERY helpful!!
....it's similar to what our teacher said- just going to add in a few more columns with what you suggested!! :D
I'm actually rather interested in the Manhattan Project- cos i read a really interesting book on it....but because the essay focuses on historiography im not really sure how it could work???!!! any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!! :)
Is there kind of a timeline to follow with my major work? Or can someone link me to one? When should I have my topic confirmed, question etc. TIA ;)Hey! Tbh, I don't think there really is one (especially because since it's marked internally, schools typically set their own time frames - I know some schools who only give their students one term to write it, whereas others give them almost the entire year. For me, I didn't follow a time frame at all, and I think that it would be quite hard to, as he history extension project is very much a "back and forth" process, in the sense that your question often changes with your essay. I didn't come up with my final question until months into the project!
Hey!WOW!!! You are so, so, so KIND!!!
That sounds so interesting! I was actually looking at doing the atomic bombing last year but choose a different topic. I was going to look at the different historian's perspectives of was it actually justified.
From the syllabus, I think yours may be able to fit these (depending on what you would like to do):
• a historical debate or controversy
• a historian’s or archaeologist’s work
• contrasting approaches to a historical personality, issue or event (also how historians perspectives have changed over time)
• history in the media – (film, documentary, fiction, docudrama, drama, poetry, opera)
• an interdisciplinary approach to the study of the history of a personality, issue or event
• critical analysis of a major historical work
There are a few others as well but these are the main ones.
You have to focus mainly on the historians who wrote about the event, although you can still look at the history behind it, but mainly for background knowledge. For my essay, I looked at a historical debate between two Holocaust historians (on why the German people of police battalion 101 were involved in the Holocaust), and I wrote about their context, methodology and interpretations and compared/criticised them.
I found this this website with interviews with four different Manhattan Project historians that might be helpful in getting some of their interpretations.
Hope this helps! :D
WOW!!! You are so, so, so KIND!!!Hey,
Thankyou veerrrryy much- that's excellent...definitely will help me get started ;D
so...do you use those syllabus points to help form the question???
your topic sounds very interesting...realising how little i know :o ::)
good luck for the exam!!! :D
Hey guys,Hey,
So I'm surfing around Book Depository and I was wondering if you guys could recommend some historiography-related books that could be useful for History Extension? The books I've currently bookmarked are:
E.H Carr- What is History
John Vincent- An Intelligent Person's Guide to History (currently unavailable on Book Depository but under my radar)
Richard J. Evans- In Defence of History
Thanks :)
Hey guys,I would highly recommend John Warren's 'History and the Historians', it has information on a lot of different historians and goes through chronologically the different periods in history from ancient historiography to post-modernism, really useful source helped me alot this year. :D
So I'm surfing around Book Depository and I was wondering if you guys could recommend some historiography-related books that could be useful for History Extension? The books I've currently bookmarked are:
E.H Carr- What is History
John Vincent- An Intelligent Person's Guide to History (currently unavailable on Book Depository but under my radar)
Richard J. Evans- In Defence of History
Thanks :)
Hi! I've managed to write essay plans for many of the recent HSC papers and now I'm struggling to find other questions to try and prepare responses for. Would anyone have suggestions about potential questions/concepts that we should prepare to be asked about in an exam? I've done to death all of these questions about the role of evidence, imaginative history, objectivity etc. from the past 10 or so years. What else might there be? Hope this makes sense! :)Hey,
Hey,
Section II was my weakest as in trials I got 21/25. I've done heaps of past papers but just struggling with the sources in some of the papers and how to use them effectively. Considering the source is only one sentence long I'm struggling to portray a strong thesis with topic sentences throughout my response.
Just wondering if I could get some advice about the most effective way to answer those Section II questions
Hey,Hey,
Section II was my weakest as in trials I got 21/25. I've done heaps of past papers but just struggling with the sources in some of the papers and how to use them effectively. Considering the source is only one sentence long I'm struggling to portray a strong thesis with topic sentences throughout my response.
Just wondering if I could get some advice about the most effective way to answer those Section II questions
Considering the exam is in the afternoon tmr, what is the best way to prepare in the morning? What should I do? I feel like doing responses will only tire my armHey,
Hey,
This is something I was wondering myself, tbh.
I don’t think I would do any full papers or essays because I don’t want my hand to be sore, and I don’t think that doing it that late would be a productive use of my time (and it would probably stress me out). I think I might just end up looking over my flashcards (on the historians for part 1 and my case study) and I might do some small essay plans and get the main ideas from some sources. Or you could hop on the Debate thread! and argue some of your ideas (One of my favourite threads-I found this really helpful during trials and writing practise essays :D).
Ultimately, it's up to you, and whatever you think will help you the most for the exam.
Good luck for tomorrow! :D
HEY GUYS!!!!!
GOOD LUCK FOR TOMORROW!!!! Sorry I haven't been as active on here over the last few days - consequences of the modern and ancient exam being beforehand :( But if there are any last minute questions, i'll be available tonight till late!!
I'm sure proud of the little community here - the progress you have all made is astounding, and I'm sure you will absolutely smash it tomorrow!!!
good luck,
Susie <3
Hihi,It very much so is a possibility! However, if that is the case, just focus on one and maybe just mention another in as much detail as you can. It's not ideal, but if it does say two, you do really have to make sure that you have two discussed. The exam is in the afternoon tomorrow, so if you have time, I recommend having a glance over one of the other debates and grabbing a few quotes for it!
Just wondering, do you think this year's History Extension question 2 will ask you to talk about 2 areas of historical debate? - Because I'm not sure if I'll be able to write 2 :( Hopefully they will only ask for 1
It very much so is a possibility! However, if that is the case, just focus on one and maybe just mention another in as much detail as you can. It's not ideal, but if it does say two, you do really have to make sure that you have two discussed. The exam is in the afternoon tomorrow, so if you have time, I recommend having a glance over one of the other debates and grabbing a few quotes for it!
Good luck tomorrow!!
Susie
Any predictions on what the 'what is history' question will be on? Or is it practically impossible to predict a history extension question?Impossible aha, cos that would require me knowing the sources as well since they're so intrinsically related! Sorry :( !
Impossible aha, cos that would require me knowing the sources as well since they're so intrinsically related! Sorry :( !Haha no worries, better hope for something good then ;D
Haha no worries, better hope for something good then ;DIn my opinion, Extension questions normally are pretty good :) The subject definitely is hard - but the exams themselves are accessible for history extension students. What I mean by that is unlike Modern/Ancient exams were they may use complex wording, or mention more specific details in questions in order to catch out those students who treat the subjects like a bludge, nobody picks up history extension because it's a bludge (or at least, if they did, they're trés stupidé), they pick it up because they genuinely have a passion for history. Thus, the ppl who make the paper don't want to punish you guys, they want to give you an accessible/fair paper, so you can truely show your stuff!
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/006/759/both.jpg)
The best way to go about it is to directly answer the question through the main points raised in the source! You don't necessarily have to directly quote the source in your judgement, but as you want your essay to continually relate, that would definitely be the best way moving forward :) Sounds like you are approaching it well as you are now!
Are we going to make an exam discussion thread for HIX?Just did ;)
Hey! :)Hey! I studied Agrippina in ancient history - she's absolutely facinating! Probably my favourite topic in ancient, and there are definitely a lot of historiographical debates that you can explore! I love how you are already considering feminist history and "bottom-up" history - ie. already looking at the "concepts" rather than the historiographical content. What I would suggest is making sure that that remains the focus, and that you also have an interesting/unique thesis. Don't just describe the differing interpretations - try and find a unifying theme. I think noting the consistency of "femininity" as a theme throughout all histories of Agrippina could work well! Ie. Looking at how, no matter what interpretation, her status as a woman is the defining feature. You could also look at how she is consistently portrayed through literary tropes (ie. evil stepmother, seducer, hypermasculine female commander) etc. etc. :)
I've just started History Extension, and am trying make a start on my major work. I was thinking of possibly looking at changing interpretations of Agrippina the Younger in regards to the rise of the Feminist approach and "Bottom-Up" history, and using historians like Tacitus and Dio vs Barrett and Ginsburg.
I was hoping someone could let me know what they thought as this is the first year it has run at my school so I don't have many points of reference!
Thanks!!
Hey guys,Basically, what I mean by describing is that a very common structure for a major work is:
So my topic at the moment is: Critiquing the Traditionalist Narrative via a Revisionist Lens: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings. But I've just been noted by suddods that I might end up describing the two views rather than actually critically analysing them. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I could avoid that, or possibly any unique approaches?
Thanks!!
Hey! I studied Agrippina in ancient history - she's absolutely facinating! Probably my favourite topic in ancient, and there are definitely a lot of historiographical debates that you can explore! I love how you are already considering feminist history and "bottom-up" history - ie. already looking at the "concepts" rather than the historiographical content. What I would suggest is making sure that that remains the focus, and that you also have an interesting/unique thesis. Don't just describe the differing interpretations - try and find a unifying theme. I think noting the consistency of "femininity" as a theme throughout all histories of Agrippina could work well! Ie. Looking at how, no matter what interpretation, her status as a woman is the defining feature. You could also look at how she is consistently portrayed through literary tropes (ie. evil stepmother, seducer, hypermasculine female commander) etc. etc. :)
Yeah, just make sure that you have an actual argument - not just listing off different opinions :)
Hope this helps!
Susie
Thank you for the information! Just a quick question in regards to the diary, is it allowed if it takes an online form or is that something that will depend on my teacher. Also, I've only recently begun inquiring into an area that I think i'll do for my major and my idea is a bit too broad. I wanted to look into the omission of gay history or rather a 'gay' interpretation of history, do you have any recommendations on how to begin, explore this concept or would you happen to know any historians with that approach to any era fo history. Any help would be fantastic :DIn regards to your first question, that depends on your teacher I'm afraid. At my school we could do our logs online, but I can't speak for other schools as it is marked internally. In regards to your potential major work topic, I think that sounds super interesting! I'm not super well-versed however in the area, so I'm not really sure what to suggest. I definitely recommend doing some reading up on the concept of social history/bottom-up history. Though that it's specifically lgbtqi history, lgbtqi history would fall under that bracket. In terms of case studies, Stonewall may be a good one to look at? Lgbtqi history pre and post Stonewall?
Basically, what I mean by describing is that a very common structure for a major work is:
Introduction
Paragraph 1 - Context (basically just the history of the event)
Paragraph 2 - Perspective 1
Paragraph 3 - Perspective 2
Conclusion
The person writing the report doesn't engage in the debate itself, or critically analyse the existence of the debate, but rather just outlines each side. Best way to avoid this is to find a thematic or conceptual through line - like the impact of (insert historiographical concept here) on the differing interpretations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I just had a thought - feel free to discount it, but from what I know about the event (which tbh isn't very much), Hiroshima and Nagasaki remains culturally relevant universally for sure, as it ended WWII, but also within the United States and Japan specifically. A great way to understand cultural significance is to look at national history, and how it is taught in schools - ie. through textbooks. Analysing the way that WWII history (in particular the dropping of the A-bomb) through both Japanese and American textbooks could be very interesting, and could provide insight into the significance of national narratives (i'd have a read of "Nations and Nationalism" by Eric Hobsbawm if you want to give this a go)? You could also maybe look at the concept of morality and ethics in history, and how historians have to grapple with these concepts - especially with such a controversial topic as Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Like, a lot of historians of the event focus on whether or not it was ethical or "right" to do so - but is that even something that can be determined given the subjectivity of morality itself?
Hope this helps :) Just some stuff to think about!
Susie
Thank you so much for all your help and also for your helpful as well as interesting lecture at uts for atar notes :)Aww thank you :) So glad you enjoyed the lecture! Hope to see you round the forums more ;D
Hi,Unfortunately I don't really know anything about medical historians or the medical field of history, however it does sound like a super interesting topic! Do you have any way of getting in contact with the medical historian you saw? After a modern history lecture run by Bruce Dennett (I kind of had already met him before, as he did a talk at my school) I went up and asked if he could have a look over my work, and he did! Provided me with some fantastic feedback (one part of which included him highlighting an entire paragraph and just writing "bollocks" underneath ahaha) - maybe worth a shot if you're keen to know more? :)
Just needing some direction re my topic for my Interest Project. I thought I had finally made up my mind last week, but now I don't think it will interest me for a whole year. I was at a lecture, and one of the speakers was a medical historian. It really interested me, I'd never thought of a historian in a medical area. Has anyone done anything like this? I'm kinda flying blind here, any topics/debates that people could offer?
Hey everyone, sorry to be a bother :)Hey! Great work in both Modern and Ancient! Those are some solid ranks :) Sooo glad that you picked up history extension! It is such an awesome subject - you won't regret it :)
You're home girl here is doing extension history (obviously) and I have NO IDEA what I want to do for my major work. I was hoping that I could get a couple of suggestions thrown at me for ideas on who/what I could study. I do both Modern History (overall 4th in course) and Ancient History (overall 1st in course) so either time period would suit me.
With modern history I'm not really into wars but very interested in politics and others (tbh anything except wars).
With ancient, I'm really interested in any kind of mythology (Greeks, Norse etc) and Egyptian history. Like low-key obsessed, but I don't know how well I would go with getting resources.
Thanks for your time!
Hey guys,EH Carr is a relativist! So not as extreme as a post modernist - relativists believe that historians write the truth, however it's a subjective truth, rather than writing essentially fiction, as postmodernist believe.
Quick question, would E.H Carr be classified as a postmodernist?
Thanks!
Hi,Hey,
Just a question for my History Project, I know I'm kinda behind because I haven't settled on a topic yet. I'm very much a visual learner, and absolutely hate reading pages of information - I have to read each sentence three times slowly before I get whats going on - not an efficient way to gather research. So I was thinking down the lines of something to do with photographs, and possibly how they document history, or something to do with subjectivity in photos (even though most photos first appear to be objective), I'm really not sure.It just makes me more excited than the prospect of reading page and pages and books and books of information. I do still understand that by doing something to do with photos, that won't completely eradicate reading of any kind, I'm very much aware that I will still have to do reading :) Any ideas/direction?
Thanks so much!
Just watched a really interesting video by Vox on the re-colouring of old black and white photos, which brought up a lot of great points and historiographical issues that I think would be great for history extension students to consider and maybe include within their essays!
I think you could really use this as an example when discussing the nature of truth and history, because I found this issue to be quite paradoxical! On the one hand, the 'black and white'-ness of the photos aren't truth - the world did actually have colour prior to the 1960s believe it or not! By adding colour, you could say that these photos are becoming more truthful and realistic, especially considering the amount of time and research many colourists spend assuring the accuracy. HOWEVER, on the other hand, no matter how much time and effort is spent, you can still never 100% be accurate. The colours they select may be close, but they will never be objectively, historically accurate - which may distort our perception of the image and the historical event that is taking place. For example, in the video they bring up a really interesting point that various logos have changed throughout history (they use the example of 7-up!). If you don't realise this (and it would be a really easy thing to not realise) you could really screw up the accuracy of an image.
Another important thing to note is what the video discusses in terms of providing a greater level of engagement with the past. When we look at colorized images, they don't look so "old" anymore - it is way easier to empathise with and see the similarities between ourselves and an individual from 1911 when we can see the colour of the clothes they are wearing, or the "aliveness" so to speak of their skin/eyes etc. It makes them appear not so distant :) This definitely would have some historiographical implications!
Do you think this re-engagement with the past is worth the potential historical inaccuracies that'll arise through colorisation? Or do you think that colorisation is actually making these photos more accurate? Would love to hear your thoughts!
Susie
(Here's the accompanying article if you'd like to take a read as well!)
Hey,Yes thanks heaps, that is very useful! Has the recolouring of photographs been done lots before?
Don’t worry, it took me forever to come up with a question (that changed a few times)! I like your idea and it sounds really interesting.
You could talk about the nature of truth within history and photographs (and if a photograph can ever tell the complete truth). The issue of re-colourisation of black and white pictures came up earlier this year in the debate thread which could be interesting to look at.
I spoilered Susie’s debate post here:Spoiler
You could definitely do subjectivity of photos as all are bias (because they are positioned by the photographer with their different purposes,etc). You could maybe do case studies for this with different photos/photographers and their purposes/methodology to demonstrate their subjectivity.
There's probably heaps more ideas that you could do as well!
If you are a visual learner, you could try looking at documentaries to research as well. I found a really good lecture for my major from one of my historians and it was a lot easier then reading from an historical book.
Hope this helps!! Good luck in finding a question! :D
Yes thanks heaps, that is very useful! Has the recolouring of photographs been done lots before?Do you mean has the practice/art/process of recolouring photographs been done lots before, or history projects on photo recolouration been done lots before?
Yeah the project on the recolouration of photosI highly doubt that it is a topic that is done very often - definitely not to the extent whereby it has become a cliche. Even then, as the project is marked internally, it actually doesn't matter if the project is a popular topic, as long as it appears original within the context of your class :) Along with this, even if you are doing a topic that has been done before, your take on the topic can still be entirely unique! With any topic, I think its best to try and steer clear of the "obvious" answer. So for example, initially my project was just on Bill O'Reilly, and how he was a terrible historian. Handed it into my teacher, and he made the point that, while yes, what I said was correct, and backed up by evidence, it wasn't very unique, as O'Reilly is universally considered pretty terrible - ie. I hadn't stretched myself enough. So in my final major work, I not only reduced the focus on O'Reilly, and used him as a case study rather than an element of the question, but I also worked out ways to validate his works (basically by saying that he's a shit historian, but he must still be considered a historian because many of the poor practices he employs are also employed by historians who we would say are fantastic eg. EP Thompson!)
Hey guys!
I've been confused about how to develop a sophisticated thesis for my major work. I'm thinking of doing something along the lines of how varying interpretations of history emerge with the process of time? As well as why these views have been adopted. And then using the controversy surrounding Mao in the Cultural Revolution as a case study to support this? I feel like it should be more specific, but I'm not sure how haha. I'm so sorry this is really broad haha, but any advice would help a lot. Thanks! :)
Hiii,
I won't be of much help since I'm also doing my History project this year as well but I had a friend who used time as a major aspect of her major work and I think she's analysing a range of texts that show the progression of changing opinions. Hope it minutely helps at least XD
From theyam
Hey Susie,Hey! Hmmm I think at a base level yes there is (though this is purely through my own interpretation of what these words mean). IMO methodology is an aspect of approach, but approach encompasses more than just methodology. Methodology is structural - how you plan to research, compose, and reference your works. Approach includes this, but also is intrisically related to the historians perspective as well, e.g. "a marxist approach" or "a postmodernist approach" etc. etc.
I was wondering what is the difference between an approach and methodology?
Thanks
Hey! Hmmm I think at a base level yes there is (though this is purely through my own interpretation of what these words mean). IMO methodology is an aspect of approach, but approach encompasses more than just methodology. Methodology is structural - how you plan to research, compose, and reference your works. Approach includes this, but also is intrisically related to the historians perspective as well, e.g. "a marxist approach" or "a postmodernist approach" etc. etc.
Hope this makes sense! Though tbh, I don't know if this is 100% correct, just making assumptions.
Susie
Hey!!! ;DHey! I'm pretty unfamiliar with the Manhattan Project so can't comment too much on that (though initial google search leads me to believe that there will definitely be some super interesting debates there). I think your question is good, so basically you're looking at this co-dependant relationship, which I think will make for a nice thesis. Very historiographically based as well, which is awesome :) Overall, I like it quite a lot!
I am trying to develop my question for the Major Work and this is what I have come up with! :) I am interested in any feedback...positive or negative... (including...if this is actually possible/workable ;D)
“The historian without his facts is rootless and futile, the facts without their historian are dead and meaningless” Edward Hallett Carr, ‘What is History?’
Assess this statement through the lens of the Manhattan Project.
(assessing the value/ importance of both sources/facts/experiences and historians and their contribution to the documentation of history- through the lens of the Manhattan Project- i.e. how sources, etc. enhances/ limits the accuracy of an historians documentation)
Thanks heaps!! :D
Hey,I definitely do agree with you, that first idea is very hard tpo find historians who disagree.
I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on my question for the Major Research Project. My original question was ' How the interpretation of Trail of Tears ( Forced removal of Native Americans into new territory during 1830's) changed over time' and wanted to incorporate the idea of whether it was a genocide or not. However, I realised it was very difficult to find specific historian who disagreed with the idea of genocide so I decided to take a more general approach by changing the question to the 'the changing interpretation of the Native American genocide' and then plan on using the Trail of Tears as a minor case study. There is more debate in this wider field. What do you think?
Thanks :)
Hey,I also think that your second question is better, I like how it uses an event as a case study rather than focus (which can often lead to a "history" essay), however I like your question more so as a starting point, as in I am expecting your question to evolve beyond this I think the topic that you have chosen is super interesting, and will have a lot of debate and discussion imbued within it, but as you research, try and find more of a conceptual angle that you can pin your essay on, beyond just "different interpretations" - that type of essay can lead to more of just an outline of differing views, rather than an analysis. You definitely CAN write a fantastic, band E4 essay on differing interpretations, but if you really want to ensure the top marks, you want to try and find something more unique and specific to just the obvious "interpretations are impacted by context".
I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on my question for the Major Research Project. My original question was ' How the interpretation of Trail of Tears ( Forced removal of Native Americans into new territory during 1830's) changed over time' and wanted to incorporate the idea of whether it was a genocide or not. However, I realised it was very difficult to find specific historian who disagreed with the idea of genocide so I decided to take a more general approach by changing the question to the 'the changing interpretation of the Native American genocide' and then plan on using the Trail of Tears as a minor case study. There is more debate in this wider field. What do you think?
Thanks :)
I also think that your second question is better, I like how it uses an event as a case study rather than focus (which can often lead to a "history" essay), however I like your question more so as a starting point, as in I am expecting your question to evolve beyond this I think the topic that you have chosen is super interesting, and will have a lot of debate and discussion imbued within it, but as you research, try and find more of a conceptual angle that you can pin your essay on, beyond just "different interpretations" - that type of essay can lead to more of just an outline of differing views, rather than an analysis. You definitely CAN write a fantastic, band E4 essay on differing interpretations, but if you really want to ensure the top marks, you want to try and find something more unique and specific to just the obvious "interpretations are impacted by context".
Hope this helps!
Susie
I definitely do agree with you, that first idea is very hard tpo find historians who disagree.
But I do quite like your more general second idea. There is definitely more debate in that wider field that you can look at.
Good luck! :)
Heyyy,I absolutely love this question (i do like arguing about left,right politics (feel ree to debate with me 8) )
so two questions from a very anxious nerd,
1 - This is my focus question so far and I'm wondering if it sounds complex enough or if it is even a good question at all,
Evaluate the way in which ‘left’ and ‘right’ wing politics/ideologies play integral roles in historiographical conflict or ‘history wars’.
WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO
Discuss with specific reference to the construction of the contemporary ANZAC legacy. (Current centenary, 2014 – 2018)
2 - How do you start? I've done my proposal and want to use these holidays to start my essay but I have no clue when or where to start actually creating it, I have so many resources and a thesis but what to put to paper is alluding me.
Heyyy,Hey! I like your question :) Its very historiographical, which is awesome - even your case study is based around a historiographical issue, rather than an event, which is fantastic, and I definitely believe that you will find a lot of complexity through your research that you will be able to incorporate into your argument. My only, slight criticism would be that structurally your question is a little bit messy. The core of it is great, it's just the wording. I'd avoid the slashes in particular. If I were you, i'd try to adapt it slightly, so that it means the same thing, but reads better :)
so two questions from a very anxious nerd,
1 - This is my focus question so far and I'm wondering if it sounds complex enough or if it is even a good question at all,
Evaluate the way in which ‘left’ and ‘right’ wing politics/ideologies play integral roles in historiographical conflict or ‘history wars’.
WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO
Discuss with specific reference to the construction of the contemporary ANZAC legacy. (Current centenary, 2014 – 2018)
2 - How do you start? I've done my proposal and want to use these holidays to start my essay but I have no clue when or where to start actually creating it, I have so many resources and a thesis but what to put to paper is alluding me.There isn't really one, perfect way to start writing your essay - it is very much dependant on who you are. Personally, I wouldn't recommend doing a block of research, and then attempting to write the whole thing. Yes, research is important, and you do want to at least do some research before you start writing your response, BUT it is important to remember that the history extension project is a PROCESS. What you write today, may be completely superfluous at a later date. I know for me, I completely changed my question 4 times - and that's okay! I found that some of my best ideas came while I was writing my major work, than during the research process. I'd be writing something, realise a completely new angle that I could take with a bit of information, then I'd adjust all my previous bits of writing to suit that, and do more research. Don't feel like what you write today has to be perfect, because you will have months to adapt and change it - just give it a go :)
HiAwesome! Sounds like a cool project idea - so you're looking at Shakespeare's play Richard III i'm assuming? :) Hmmm in terms of your question, I can't really tell you where your own judgement needs to come into it, because it should be all throughout! That's the whole point of the major work, it's a piece of analytical writing, not descriptive. I'm hesitant to just outline the impacts of historical narrative and fiction for you, as this is your project after all, so I'll leave the big stuff up to you (of course I'm here to help if you need anything, but its always best to do a bit of your own research first, bring that to me, and then we, and anyone else on this thread, can go over that together). At a basic level however, there are many impacts of historical narrative and fiction on interpretations of the past, from distorting our understanding of historical figures/events/societies, while at the same time including more within the realm of history. I think an important thing for you to look into would be the concept of historical fiction in general, because there are some (eg. postmodernists) who would say that ALL history is fiction - so what is the distinction?
I need some help with my history extension project in particular the research. My essay topic which is based off your previous thread: The impact of historical narrative and fiction on the interpretation of the past. Im essentially using Richard iii as a case study to highlight this concept. But what are impacts of historical narrative and fiction and where does my own judgement come into this.
Kind Regards
Thanks for the reply,Yeah, that sounds right! It is going against Von Ranke’s views as he aimed to study the past in its own terms (with no present-mindedness) and believed that the historians needed to stick to the facts.
Currently, after my research the impacts of historical narrative and fiction are:
- make history more appealing for specific audiences, essentially to mould history to its audience? Shakespeare's play shows this. But would this not go against Rankes view of history being isolated. By making history more acceptable it distorts history to a specific time tells more about the views and morals of the audiences society. Idk if this is correct and all, these are just ideas that came up.
So just to verify when. I write the essay im going to have a body paragraph talking about this impact and then relate Richard III's play. As an example??
I would possibly look into postmodernism and some of the postmodernist historians. You probably haven’t looked at them in class yet back basically they believe that you can never be fully objective and therefore all history is fiction and each perspective is equally valid. Simon Schama was a postmodernist who combined stories with his writing of history as he believed history was a version of storytelling. (The other postmodernist historians I studied were Foucault, Jenkins and White).
- I tried finding sources about the concept of history being fiction. I couldn't find any sources. Where did you guys get you sources from.
Thanks again
Hey guys!Not a dumb question! My take on that would be that academic standards are more rigorous, and they have more to answer for. A typical publishing house for a popular historian (I know this because my mum works in a publishing house that often publishes such historians) is overly concerned with the historical accuracy of the text, more so that it will sell. Therefore, artistic liberties are often looked over and allowed, or even encouraged! For example, many publishes believe that footnotes can distract readers, clog up pages, and just look overall uninviting for the casual buyer, thus less footnotes are preferable for a popular historical text - basically encouraging popular historians to be less rigorous about referencing - something that is SUPER important for academic historians.
So this is kinda a dumb question- so in class we're discussing about the conflict between public and academic history and how academic historians have a protocol to follow in contrast to popular history. But what are these 'protocols'?
I can't find any criticisms on Thucydides, like 3 positives, and 3 negatives to write about how approaches to his writings have changed etc.Hey,
anyone got links?
I'm kinda stressing out, coz I'm part of the first years to do extension history at our school, so don't really have anyone to talk to!Hey don't stress! You've still got more than enough time to complete your project - I completely changed my topic in the middle of term 2, and still managed to complete the essay with enough time :) I definitely like the idea of photographs as a tool of historical enquiry - I think I understand what you mean as well, that photographs have an air of objectivity around them, moreso than text, given the fact that many would assume that the photograph is an uadulterated version of the event, rather than a re-telling of an event (despite the fact that there are many problems that arise with utilising photographs as evidence, namely that they are merely an tiny minute extract in time, and that they can also be the product of manipulation through staging and editing). I also like the case study that you have chosen!
I know I should be getting a lot of work done towards my project these holiday's, but haven't really determined a question yet. I started out with the idea of photographs and their 'subjectivity', almost playing with the idea that if there was a photo of the conditions in a trench, and a diary entry of the same trench, people would believe the photo more, because it captures reality and is not subjective. Kinda hard to explain.
I was looking for a case study and came across the battle of Iwo Jima, particularly the famouse photograph of the flag being raised, which is now said to be one of the most reproduced photos in history. However, this photo was 'staged', and was infact taken of the second flag raising as the most flag was considered too small. There's a bit more to it, but I'm really struggling to get started anywhere.
Sorry this is so confusing!
Thanks for both answers!Hey,
Did you have any strict structural layouts, like this point of analysis for this many words?
Also, when do you think a first draft should be done by??
Hi, i just started researching my topic for my major work and i'm getting ready to start working on my first draft but i'm very confused about how to structure my response. I'd really appreciate so tips and advice on how to do thatHey!
My only concern is that it may be a bit too specific - you might struggle to write an entire essay on the topic. I'm not saying that you can't, however I believe it would be quite difficult. I suggest broadening out your topic a bit - maybe this can be one paragraph, dealing with the broader issue of unconventional evidence, looking at the way in which specific groups of historians utilise various forms of evidence (or suggest these forms are more valuable than others, eg. official documents).Firstly, thankyou so much for answering and providing so much reassurance! With the part I have quoted above, are you suggesting my question be something in regards to photographs as a historical sources, with Iwo Jima as an example/case study to back up a point made in the essay, but locate other examples for other points I make? Like, kinda zoom out a bit and make the essay overall about photographs, but then use specific case studies to reinforce my analysis rather than do a whole essay on Iwo Jima? Sorry so muddled.
Firstly, thankyou so much for answering and providing so much reassurance! With the part I have quoted above, are you suggesting my question be something in regards to photographs as a historical sources, with Iwo Jima as an example/case study to back up a point made in the essay, but locate other examples for other points I make? Like, kinda zoom out a bit and make the essay overall about photographs, but then use specific case studies to reinforce my analysis rather than do a whole essay on Iwo Jima? Sorry so muddled.No worries! What we're here for :) What I was suggesting in the quote was maybe broadening it beyond just photographs and looking at the nature of evidence in general, and whether or not unconventional forms (eg. photographs, but also film, literature, art, etc.) can also be considered valid forms of evidence, and they maybe provide a unique perspective or challenge to the historian, using photographs (and principally Iwo Jima's photographs) as a case study :) If you did decide to take this path, you could look at Bernard Porter as another example of someone who uses a wide variety of different "cultural" sources to support his analysis, beyond just the typical official documents and letters.
Hi :)Hey! Now I don't know much about the Iranian Revolution, or the historiographical debates, so unfortunately I cannot be of much help in the specifics, however what I will suggest is try and find a unique angle. Don't just regurgitate what other historiographers say (ie people from this nationality say this, whereas people from this nationality have a different opinion), try and find something different to make your argument shine. That doesn't mean you have to change your plan, you can still focus on nationalities and context, however maybe look at historiographical concepts related to these notions, eg. Orientalism, Nationalism, etc. to build your response, and add a theoretical layer to your analysis which will strengthen your essay.
I was wondering if I could have some advice on my major work which is based on the causes of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and how historians' perceptions have changed over time. I plan to explore how historians with varying nationalities and differing contexts write this historiography and whether their representations of history are valid based on their varying methodologies. I'm also finding it difficult to come across meaningful controversies between historians and was wondering if you could give me some pointers as to where to find good information and how you were able to incorporate it into the essay.
I would really appreciate your help :)
Thanks so much for your reply Susie :) Just to confirm something else, is the major work question designed to be theoretical as well?It doesn't necessarily have to be theoretical (though it never hurts to be), however it does have to be historiographical, rather than history based :)
No worries! What we're here for :) What I was suggesting in the quote was maybe broadening it beyond just photographs and looking at the nature of evidence in general, and whether or not unconventional forms (eg. photographs, but also film, literature, art, etc.) can also be considered valid forms of evidence, and they maybe provide a unique perspective or challenge to the historian, using photographs (and principally Iwo Jima's photographs) as a case study :) If you did decide to take this path, you could look at Bernard Porter as another example of someone who uses a wide variety of different "cultural" sources to support his analysis, beyond just the typical official documents and letters.Are you able to explain 'unconventional evidence' a bit further for me? Sorry about all the questions.
However that was only one suggestion - definitely not something that you need to take on board, just my initial thoughts when looking at your topic :)
Are you able to explain 'unconventional evidence' a bit further for me? Sorry about all the questions.All good no worries! What I mean by that is evidence that is not traditionally used by historians to support their analysis. For example, many empiricist historians suggest that the only form of actual evidence that should be consulted are official documents and letters, however today many historians (particularly cultural or social historians) look at unconventional evidence to provide a new perspective (that some may argue is more of a reflection of the society that the potentially manipulated political documents). For example, some historians will now use more cultural evidence, such as TV, comic books, school textbooks, working class prints and music as sources and evidence to support their thesis.
All good no worries! What I mean by that is evidence that is not traditionally used by historians to support their analysis. For example, many empiricist historians suggest that the only form of actual evidence that should be consulted are official documents and letters, however today many historians (particularly cultural or social historians) look at unconventional evidence to provide a new perspective (that some may argue is more of a reflection of the society that the potentially manipulated political documents). For example, some historians will now use more cultural evidence, such as TV, comic books, school textbooks, working class prints and music as sources and evidence to support their thesis.Ahhh that makes heaps more sense, thankyou. I'm really liking that idea. If I based my question on whether unconventional evidence can be considered a valid form of evidence, and the challenges or oppurtunities it presents to historians, would I be able to look at just photographs, or would it be best to include others too e.g. art, films, music etc. I feel like I would be able to talk about photographs a lot easier than other sources, but wondering if that is too narrow.
Hope this makes more sense :)
Susie
Ahhh that makes heaps more sense, thankyou. I'm really liking that idea. If I based my question on whether unconventional evidence can be considered a valid form of evidence, and the challenges or oppurtunities it presents to historians, would I be able to look at just photographs, or would it be best to include others too e.g. art, films, music etc. I feel like I would be able to talk about photographs a lot easier than other sources, but wondering if that is too narrow.I can't make a definitive call on that as it isn't my project, and I don't know a lot about the issue, however I'd say that you'd be fine using photographs as your main case study, however it'd be good to at least incorporate some other forms of evidence as well :)
I can't make a definitive call on that as it isn't my project, and I don't know a lot about the issue, however I'd say that you'd be fine using photographs as your main case study, however it'd be good to at least incorporate some other forms of evidence as well :)Yep, ok. All the same, thankyou very much for all your help.
Hey all,Hey there!
on the marking criteria for the progress log of the major work it says "providing a detailed explanation of procedures used"... what does that mean?????? Is there a more correct research procedure i should be using??
MT
Hello :)Hey,
I was wondering whether I could have some advice on the major work. I'm thinking of doing it on the changing interpretations on Chairman Mao's role in the Cultural Revolution but I'm not too sure on how to structure the essay. I think it's best to do it by concepts or by the questions from the syllabus, but I'm not too sure on how to apply it to my current question. I'm sorry for the broad question, but any advice would be really helpful!
Thanks
Hi!Hey,
So I'm totally struggling...I looked over some of the history extension past papers and was blown away.
How do I write like that?
How can I write like that?
I feel like I dont know the jargon of this historical world (let alone past and present from all these dead guys).In terms of the historical jargon, I found that by reading through readings (of both the textbook/historical work) I began to understand it better throughout the year. My teacher also made a quizlet on some 'What is History' Key terms so I would go through that to make sure I knew them. It included terms like teleology, anachronism, total history, public history,etc. As well as understanding the jargon when reading it, you can use it in your essays as well! :)
I was wondering if you have some clear and simple tips to help me break it down?
Would be super grateful for some advice.
*Also, how would I incorporate better historiography into the major work? Right now my draft sounds like a modern history essay. It has my three points and some quotes with strong arguments but not much historians/theories, etc. Not sure how to integrate 'theory' into my essay on historical figures.Whats your question for your major? Depends on the question but it needs to be a historiographical topic, so you need to be looking at the historians more then the historical figures/event.
Many thanks, guys!
;D
Hey!Hey,
So I'm finalising my preliminary reference list for my Major Work and I just realised that one of my sources was a University Student Newspaper with one of the students reviewing Battlefield 1 through a perspective of a historiographer (i.e. historical accuracy, criticising selection of weapons in the game etc.) Would this be considered as a reliable source of information? ( If you want, you can check out the website.)
Hey there!When it says sources it is just referring to historians/schools of history. So you'd need to reference at least two different historians in your essay.
So I'm going through some past papers and I noticed in the question 1 section it mentions something like: 'two other sources.' What does it mean by that?
Thanks in advance.
- Olivia
When it says sources it is just referring to historians/schools of history. So you'd need to reference at least two different historians in your essay.Hmm, now I'm a bit confused. So two different historians consistently throughout the essay or using different historians as an example per paragraph?
Hope this helps :D
Hmm, now I'm a bit confused. So two different historians consistently throughout the essay or using different historians as an example per paragraph?Hey, sorry for the confusion.
For example, point 1: Historians now have a lot of evidence to refer to due to the different forms of evidence, thus indicating the changing nature of evidence.
Examples included in the paragraph: von Ranke vs Herodotus with Ranke only using written documents vs Herodotus' belief in performing history rather than via written works.
And then in the next paragraph, two different historians to support my point.
Sorry, I'm still a bit confused :/
Hey,Hey,
I would really appreciate it if anyone can help, I have an exam on Friday and we were given a practice task. I have been given a source thing and then have been told 'discuss the historiography of 'Battle' (the practice source). In your answer you should make explicit reference to the source.'
I know it won't be the same source in the exam, but how on earth do I answer a question like this??
Help please!!
Hi,Hey,
So i have my half yearlys coming up real soon and i just wanted to ask you how you studied for the subject
what helped you write a really good essay.For my essays, I made sure that I had at least 10 minutes planning time.
Also with the major work, do you have a scaffold of your proposal??As the major works are marked internally they can vary between schools. Yours may be structured slightly differently to mine.
Thanks :)
Hey guys,Hey,
I'm currently organising my notes on Ranke and one of the sections is comparing the pros and cons of his methodology. Would you say there would be any benefit in relying on archived documents? At the moment, I can only list the negative things about Ranke's methodology.
Thanks in advance!
How do I avoid the process log becoming a diary? How should I write it?Hey,
Hi :)Hey,
For my project, I'm most likely doing the question "Photographs; a challenge or opportunity for the modern historian?"
Questions:
1. Any criticisms for my question? I have a feeling it may be too broad.
2. For my enquiry questions, I was thinking of doing 3 different types of historians, and how photographs can be advantageous/a hindrance for them. I am most likely doing war historians, but am not sure as to what do for the other two. Any ideas?
3. Does this sound like it is going in the right direction?
Thank You for any advice at all :D
Hey,Hey,
Im planning to structure my essay this way. My question is 'What do claims & denials of the Native American genocide reveal about the nature of history?'
Im trying to focus my paragraphs around historiographical issues..Any criticisms? How can i improve the 2nd point ?
Introduction/ synopsis
Body Paragraphs:
1. The problems of previous mainstream history of the Native Americans being written by the hegemonic white society
2. Defending the role of history as a discipline- it capacity to continuously take in alternative readings of the past and still search for objectivity
3. The limitations of an Eurocentric natured discipline- its failure to broaden is highlighted by the only recent birth of the genocide debate
4. The process of historical comparison between the Native American genocide & Jewish Holocaust- the pros & cons
5. Coining of the term genocide & how the debate about the genocide reveals the process of Native Americans becoming the agents of their own history
Conclusion
Thank you
Hey,Thank you !
I think that your ideas for the paragraphs are all really good as they are all based on historiographical issues that seem well researched and you would use the Native American genocide as a case study throughout your essay.
1. Could possibly talk about the top down approach to history (scholarship that is written by rich white men/higher classes and emphasises elites and leaders opposed to average people).
2. While history is constantly challenged by new differing interpretations and perspectives formed on events, historians still strive for historiographical objectivity throughout their works. You could look at the context/methodology of your historians and show how even though they have differing perspectives they all aim to be objective. You could show however, that each historian still has some bias throughout their work as they can never be 100% objective.
Hope this helps!! Good luck for your essay! :D
Hey guys,Hey,
So I'm currently planning my practice essay for the 2016 HSC Exam and this is my essay plan so far:
.............
Does this structure make sense? I'm not very comfortable in writing History Extension essays so I'm running past my structure here before writing.
Thanks in advance!
Hey,Hey,
For the extension history essay, 'What is history', what are some tips for constructing paragraphs and are the topic sentences like English topic sentences where you make a broad statement and then go on...
Thanks!
Hey,
I planned my What is History essays by first reading over the source a few times. I then highlighted the main arguments that were relevant to the question and write these in my own words (around 3-4 main points). I would state if I agreed/disagreed with these points and then link historians and briefly explain why. I would then number my points and write a thesis statement that would be the first page of my introduction.
My topic sentences were broad statements on the historiographical issue (e.g Historians can be selective in their use of sources), and then I would go on, including my historians to back up the arguments.
Make sure that your essays are analytical essays, that have critical judgements on the historians and arguments in the source. Try to include the positive and negative points about each historian/schools approach to history.
I wrote an article on planning and writing history extension essays here, that may be helpful.
Hope this helps! :D
Hey everyone,
I'm really behind on my major work, I've chopped and changed ideas so many times but I think I've settled on one now and I really need to start writing.
I've got my idea but I'm unsure as how to make it more historiographical, so any help would be appreciated !!
I've been brainstorming about my interests and I think I want to do the Cult of Isis in Rome - cultic behaviour /practices
- how did cults operate? - power? structure? practice?
- the purpose and significance of the roman women’s cults
- apuleius’ account of the cult of isis - what it reveals about romans
- Ovid's accounts regarding the cult
- Propertius – has poems about Isis
-maybe try and include some of Michel Foucault's theories on power?
-I'm finding it hard to find modern historians to relate to it as well
If anyone could help I'd be eternally grateful !! :)
Hey guys,Hey,
So half-yearlies are coming soon and I wanted to ask: how do you prepare for History Extension exams? Apart from doing practice essays and essay plans, are there any other ways we can prepare for an exam?
Also, can someone explain linguistic turn? I've asked a number of people about this, and when I try to research about it, I still don't understand.
Thanks in advance!
So my half yearly for extension is tomorrow morning (whoops) but I'm feeling pretty confident. I was just curious on how you guys picked the historians you're using in the essay (that's if your school does the same assessment as mine). My teacher tells me that 2 is a good number with the source, but did any of you do more or less? I'm studying for 3 (Herodotus, von Ranke and Evans) but I also have little bits and pieces from others so hopefully I'll have more than enough for 25 marks.So glad to hear you are feeling confident :) When I studied extension, I pretty much just stuck with these main historians; EH Carr, Keith Jenkins (or Hayden White), and John Vincent. This is because I felt they provided quite a good scope in terms of historiographical ideas, and I was able to study them in depth through my major work :) Highly recommend these three if you're interested in expanding your list! I think the selection you've got currently is good, the only thing I might suggest is to include a relativist/postmodernist in there, to balance out the empiricism of Von Ranke and Evans (like EH Carr or Keith Jenkins).
On another note, I've almost finished my history project, I've decided to research how mythology can be used as evidence in modern history, focusing on the existence of Atlantis. How are the rest of you guys going?!
Extension Jesus, you there?ahahahahahaha
Hello, Suzie, it's me your faithful follower with so many questions
In terms of my major, I've pretty much used this mini project I completed in prelims on the development of Mao's cult of personality during the cultural revolution to set the bases for my research. I know that I want to do something on Mao Zedong, most definitely, and my teacher wants me to also observe Deng Xiaoping. So far I've only investigated their rise to power, policies, issues during under their watch. For my proposal, I compared the cult of personalities of the two leaders but I have absolutely no idea on how to tie in historiography with this. I may be on the wrong path and going nowhere but if you have any tips on how to tie in historiographies, what to research, if I should neglect a profile or the cult of personality idea altogether then I would really appreciate it! Anything at all even if you tell me nothing at all is relevant to extension history.
Amen
ahahahahahaha
hey Jett, happy to help!
Okay so sounds like you've got a really interesting major work topic, however I do understand your concern :) You do want to make sure that this doesn't just become a history project, and with that in mind you shouldn't just be tying historiography into this essay, but rather it should be the BASIS of your essay. What you need to work out are debates - what do historians disagree on in regard to these two figures, and WHY do they disagree on them? Then, try and see if there are any common threads between various historians in how they portray these individuals. For eg (i'm sure you could find better examples), do social historians present a different view of Mao Zedong in comparison to economic historians? Why would a social historian present him in this way?
An interesting, historiographical topic that you could look at in regard to Mao Zedong is his characterisation as one of the most evil men in history (in comparison to other Communist leaders like Stalin, and even Adolf Hitler!). Now with a history extension project you wouldn't have to disagree or agree with that statement, but rather analyse why some people perceive him as that, while others (because many actually do, whether you find it hard to believe or not) treat him like a hero. If I were to undertake this project, I would probably look at the influence of the text 'The Black Book of Communism', and how that has shaped interpretations of his regime, as that book has kind of become the basis for the way non-communist historians deal with communist history.
Hope this helps!
Susie
Hi Suzie (or anyone else)Hey Henry,
What would be your tips for studying for section 2 of the HSC exam? The case study I'm doing is Crusades. Would it be similar as to how you would study for the section 1?
Thank you !
Hey Henry,
I studied pretty similarly for section 2 and section 1. My case study was JFK and I made flashcards/quizlets on aspects such as the historian’s context, methodology, interpretations, quotes, name/year of books. I also tried to do a lot of essay plans and practise essays on past HSC and trial papers.
Hope this helps :D
Hi,
Thanks for creating this forum - it's been super helpful!
I'm just wondering about how to approach section II of the History Extension paper. My case study is JFK, and although I'm relatively comfortable with the content I have no idea how to structure the essay. Any recommendations?
Thanks
Hey guys,Hey Imogen,
For the project synopsis, my teacher said that I needed to include more on methodology / why content used in the essay was included. I'm not too sure how to approach this - is it just saying what sources / historians I used?
Thanks! :) :)
Hey Imogen,
Welcome to AN!! :)
I think you might need to say a bit about what sources/historians you used. I didn't write a lot about methodology in my synopsis but maybe a bit about how you came up with your question and researched your essay.
For why content was used in the essay, I needed to include more detail about why I choose both of my historians and focussed on my specific topic (Police Battalion 101). So, some of the things I said was that they had both written books on the topics, and their interpretations had been both praised, criticised and sometimes controversial.
For example this was my synopsis:SpoilerThis essay is looking at two conflicting interpretations of why many perpetrators of the Holocaust were involved in the murder of the Jewish people. I am investigating the debate between Christopher Browning and Daniel Goldhagen, two historians with conflicting interpretations on the events due to the great deal of information that I can use as they have both written books on this issue. Their interpretations have both been praised and criticised (in many different historical works) and Goldhagen especially has been very controversial in his views on the Holocaust and the German culture of the perpetrators. I am examining their context and methodology and how this has affected their interpretations of the events. I am also drawing on their criticisms to find out which historian’s interpretation is more reliable. This historical enquiry will answer the ‘Who are the historians?’, and ‘How has history been constructed and recorded over time?’ questions from the syllabus. I came to this question after first researching how much the German population knew about the Holocaust, and then realising that thousands of Germans were actively involved in the murder of the Jewish people.
Hope this helps!! :D
I know this is really simple (and something I've gone over heaps of times) - but can someone please define the different types of history - e.g. modern, post-modern etc?? My teacher never actually explicitly taught it, so I'm trying to study but v confused!
Hi there,Hey, Welcome to AN!! ;D
My extension major project is due tomorrow and there is a section I would love some guidance with!
I have to do a critical bibliography which includes a "critical evaluation of three sources that must explain the strengths/weaknesses of each source, its usefulness and reliability and the rationale for its usefulness to the project" etc
I'm really not sure how to approach this.
thanks in advance :)
Hey, Welcome to AN!! ;D
The source evaluation is on the three most valuable sources of your essay (for mine it was both of my historian's books and a YouTube video of the topic). It's 600 words max, so it's around 200 words each but one of mine was larger then the others. It isn't as big as what you would do in modern and focuses on the strengths/weaknesses, usefulness and reliability and some reasons why it was valuable to your project/argument in your essay. You need to have a strong judgement throughout the source analysis on it's usefulness and reliability to get into the A range.
Some of the things I looked at for reliability included:
Academic qualifications (one was a professor at Harvard)
Methodology (if they used a lot of sources, one was selective in their use of sources, etc.)
Biases (one had a father in a concentration camp)
What I had for usefulness included:
How it had helped me in terms of the project (what I did and didn't get out of this source for my essay)
Hope this helps!! Good luck for your major!! :D
Hey,
Medieval/Early modern: Chronicling the working out of God’s purpose in the world.
Enlightenment: A process from ignorance to truth, intellectual mood was a key feature, was anti-religious as they had a confidence in reasons. Human nature was universal, unchanging and unhistorical.
Romantic: Similar timing to the Enlightenment however a reaction against it, about free expression, creativity and anti-reason, sees history as a thing of beauty not science. See the past as exciting and different, purpose was to find out about the past as something to cherish and preserve.
Scientific (e.g Ranke): Apply methods learnt as a philologist to the study of historical texts in order to achieve objectivity. Helped establish history as a separate discipline from philosophy. Introduced methods, such as source analysis to determine whether a text was true or corrupted by later interpretations.
Empiricism: Experience, which is based on observation and experimentation, is the source of knowledge.
Whig: A British political party whose origin laid in constitutional monarchism opposed to absolute monarchy. Presents the past as an inevitable progression towards liberty and enlightenment. Shows emotions and thoughts of the past.
Nationalist: Assumed the ‘nation-state’ was the primary object of historical study. Historians aim was to study the origins, development of states and their relations with one another.
Relativist: The ‘aspect of things’ changed with the position of the observer. Historians were guided as to what was important in the past, by their present concerns. Therefore, truth is related to the person who wrote it or the time in which it was written.
Total history: A total history of one place at one time, incorporating mentalities, the event and the long term as well as combining with other disciplines such as anthropological, econometric, demographic and more traditional political history.
Public History: Forms of historical representation which are produced outside the academy, either directly addressing a large general audience, or for public, often governmental purposes. Public historians wish to provide history that is accessible and easy to understand by everybody. Examples of public history include museums, historical films, radio, television, historical sites, commemorations, and re-enactments. Public historians believe that anyone can write history. Conversely, academic historians with degrees/qualifications in history and have written books on their subjects (not for a general public audience).
Modernism: Human reason can lead to truth/reality by a logical process. History is progressing, creating scientific laws of behaviour, the belief in morality and ‘eternal truth’. Modernism was rejected due to the horrors of the machine guns of WW1 and the atomic bombs of WW2.
Structuralism: Language reflects our thoughts and the reality around us. Language has a set of laws/structure. Words have an encompassing reality and meanings of words represent different realities for people.
Post-Modernism: A deliberate rejection of modernism. The belief that here is no objective truth, instead knowledge is about creating and maintaining power-relationships. Language is central to our understanding of anything and language is fluid where meanings change and mean different things to different people. Goes as far to say that history is fiction.
Post-structuralism: Questions the stability of meaning and recognises that signifiers and signs are not fixed. Meaning constantly changes so we can only ground our signifiers according to what they are not (e.g cat is not a dog). Therefore, this leads to a constant endless cycle of deferral.
Big History: Looks at the history of humanity as a whole and aims to explain how everything came to be and where everything is going. It is a reaction against post-modernism.
Hope this helps!! ;D
Cheers - this helps a lot!Hey,
Is there any way you would structure the evaluation in particular? Or does it not matter?
Would you have to focus just on the source (in this case it's a quote) or would it be better to analyse the writer of the source?
Hey there,You most certainly can!
For the annotated bibliography, are we allowed to use first-person?
Hey there,Hey,
Just wondering- should I use footnotes or endnotes for my major work?
thanks heaps ;D
Hey!Hey, Welcome to AN!! :D
I'm struggling with the initial stages of essay writing for extension. Any chance this source could be annotated with some talking points because im not too sure what i can pull apart and link.
Any help would be much appreciated!
thankyou
Among the distinctions historians customarily invoke when describing their
discipline is the difference between history and the past. The past is conceived to
include everything that ever happened, recorded or not; history, in contrast, is what
historians represent the past to have been …
Parallel to the distinction between history and the past there exists a second, less
frequently noted distinction between evidence and the remains of the past. The
remains of the past comprise what survives of everything that ever happened;
evidence consists of those remains that historians use in making histories …
But unlike the past, remains constitute an actual, not a virtual, reality and are thus
subject to the effects of time. Not everything in the past has left traces, and not all
traces have survived. In the absence of remains, there can be no evidence, and in
the absence of evidence, there can be no history.
But what constitutes evidence? This question has evoked two contrasting responses
from historians over the past half century. On the one hand, the definition of
evidence has expanded dramatically. From a heavy reliance on written documents,
historians have graduated to a more latitudinarian* approach that welcomes
scientific data on climate change and crop yields, medical records on health and
disease, anthropological data such as peasant tales, and material culture such as
pots and plowshares, not to mention elements of popular culture such as movies,
perfumes, and rock lyrics. Written documents, too, have been subjected to new
analysis …
Yet as the breadth of the potential evidence has grown, so have doubts about its
interpretation. The hypertrophy** of data has coincided with the realisation that
their meanings remain elusive, conferred by the interpreter rather than imposed
by the evidence. Never have historians had so much evidence at their disposal;
never has there been so much mistrust about what the evidence shows. How do the
multiple pieces of the past cohere***? What is the common thread linking literary
texts, religious art, popular songs, marriage customs, and farm implements? That
human beings created all these things may not be enough to confer an integrated
meaning on clues that are not clearly linked or on witnesses of uncertain authority.
This difficulty is particularly characteristic of the realm of values, beliefs, and
attitudes — culture in the broadest sense …
The desire to push history to the very edge of documentary evidence has produced
both exhilarating vistas and a significant unease at the prospect that the ground
where historians stand, gazing into the past may suddenly give way. On the one
hand … historians currently enjoy a bracing sense of adventure; on the other, they
are struggling to impose coherence on what threatens at times to become nothing
more than a … tale.
Hi,Hey,
I need some help for my case study: Elizabeth I, does anyone happen to have any notes on her?? Also i don't really know how to structure a section II essay about her.... tips plzzz
Thanks!
Has anyone else handed in and received their majors back from marking yet? I recently got mine and was warned that she marked harshly due to her students last year getting dragged down because they were marked easy. I received 39/50 where I lost marks linking and also my log book was quite "detached" (Which I 100% understand because I didn't really put effort into it).
There were a few bits and pieces here and there where I should have also linked to science (My project question was "Assess the Justifiability regarding the Myth of Atlantis being a Critical part of the Historical Past) but overall my teacher said that I handed in a thoroughly researched project with excellent historiography.
Any advice I could give to future students - just because a section is 5 marks doesn't mean you can slack off. DO EVERYTHING TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY!!!
Hi,Hey,
I'm fixing up the endnotes for my major work and I keep on getting confused on the format that I'm using. Does anyone have a link to a simple and reliable referencing guide? I'm not even sure which format I've started to use but I think it's Oxford.
Thanks
Emilija
Hey,
We were given this document from USyd to help us reference and I think it's in the Oxford style. This website might also help because it gives a lot of examples.
Hope this helps!! ;D
Thankyou ;D Should I be doing Oxford btw? My teacher didn't really specify.Hey,
I was wondering if anyone would be willing to check over my exam response for my trial that I just got back. I'm happy with my mark but I just wanted another perspective of what I need to include/expand on.Hey,
Hello,Hey there,
I was wondering if anyone could tell me approximately how long the introduction for the essays should be, and the number of points that I should talk about to score in the top Band?
Thank you :)
Hello,
I was wondering if anyone could tell me approximately how long the introduction for the essays should be, and the number of points that I should talk about to score in the top Band?
Thank you :)
In HIX its all about what suits you and what suits the question and the source. As such, there isn't a set "structure" that you're required to adhere to.
As long as each of your paragraphs has a topic sentence that relates directly to the question and the source, your own sources and your own voice then you've got a good HIX essay !
I did 4 main ones for the trial in the 'What is History?' section and I think 3 for case study (I was running out of time too haha)
Hope this helps
Hello,Hey,
Was just wondering if anyone was willing to share their trial papers for Extension History or any exemplar responses? I wasn't able to find much on thsc and acehsc.
Thank you ~ :)
Hey,
It would possibly be best to see if your teacher has any. I know my extension teacher was able to give us a booklet of past trial questions. Unfortunately, both CSSA and Independent papers (which are two of the main papers/companies) are copyright and therefore can't be shared on the forums.
However, there are some really good exemplar responses here (if you haven't seen them yet). :)
Thank you :)Hey,
Was just wondering if anyone could suggest how they would approach this What is History question?
The construction of history can never be divorced from its purpose
Thanks
Hey,
This was actually my trial question last year (but the source could have been different).
I argued that history cannot be fully objective as it's construction cannot be divorced from it's purpose.
My points were:
- History can be written with a purpose & initial hypothesis in mind and historians are guided by their beliefs. I talked about public history and how this is funded by the government and could push different political beliefs/ideologies.
- You could also talk bout teleology or how some historians selectively use evidence (I used E.H Carr's fishmonger analogy for this and the historians in my major did this as well).
- I also talked about marginalised groups & how post-modernism gave rise to the acceptance of marginalised groups writing history. The purpose of post-modern historians was that there is no truth and everything is equally valid. I talked about Foucault and how he was influenced by his post-modern beliefs and focussed on concepts/power struggles due to his own context.
- I also talked about 'outside traditional academic practises' through the Annals school which aimed to have a total history and therefore constructed history using branches such as oral history, genealogical research, maps, and science.
Those were some of my points (some were a bit weak though) but you could definitely come up with others as well (especially as you could have a different source).
Hope this helps!! ;D
Thank you katierinos it did :)
Was also just wondering you guys structured notes for Extension History, did you guys do it under conceptual questions or just by individual historians?
thank you :)
theyam
Thank you katierinos it did :)Hey,
Was also just wondering you guys structured notes for Extension History, did you guys do it under conceptual questions or just by individual historians?
thank you :)
theyam
Hello,Hey there,
Does anyone know the recommended amount of historians we should be using for section 1 of the HSC exam?
My teacher said it was best to use just two, but I have seen some practice essays using many more, leaving me quite confused
Thank you :)
I know they haven't in the past, but does anyone think there's a possibility they could ask us to discuss TWO areas of debate in the case study section?Hey there,
Also, my teacher said to write about 2 historians for section 1 as well because its good to discuss a couple in depth, and to compare and contrast them - so is this a bad approach?Personally, I don't think there's any "bad approach" in History Extension, unless if you're structuring chronologically then a lot of markers hate that. Like I said in the previous post, there's no specific number of historians to include in essays since it depends on what you're talking about. It also depends on how you're using the historians- sometimes I'm using a historian's philosophy and applying their philosophy to another historian/debate to reinforce my point, or sometimes I'm just using the historian as a whole to support my idea.
Also, what does Carr believe the purpose of history is? I can't find it in my notes :(((Hey there,
Also, what does Carr believe the purpose of history is? I can't find it in my notes :(((Hey,
Hello! :D
For Section 2- if the question says 'to what extent' - do we need to explicitly provide an extent (limited, significant, etc) and also if it says 'to what extent does this statement apply' - are we meant to include the statement verbatim in our thesis?? or is just another way of saying 'to what extent is the view expressed...' ??
Also- does anyone have any tips for how to approach the questions of friday, some sort of plan of attack??
And for Section 1- is there a guide on how many ideas to include (Say 2-3 ideas?? for the whole essay...)
thanks so much ;D
Hi,Hey,
How many paragraphs should we be aiming for in section 2 and how many historians?
Hey everyone, hope your study is going well!Hey Imogen! It's totally normal to feel stressed before an exam - especially for a subject known to be as hard as history extension! Just remember that everyone is in the same boat as you - no one is born good at this subject! It sounds like you have put in a lot of effort, and have studied hard, and thats all any teacher could ask for :) Even though the exam is never easy, I do believe that the markers for extension are very fair - they understand how hard the subject is too! I can out of the exam feeling pretty rotten, but that was not reflected in my final mark :)
I'm feeling quite nervous for tomorrow. I know all of my sources and quotes, but I still feel pretty stressed. Does anyone have any advice for the night before the exam? What are you guys doing to prepare tonight?
:) :)
Hey Imogen! It's totally normal to feel stressed before an exam - especially for a subject known to be as hard as history extension! Just remember that everyone is in the same boat as you - no one is born good at this subject! It sounds like you have put in a lot of effort, and have studied hard, and thats all any teacher could ask for :) Even though the exam is never easy, I do believe that the markers for extension are very fair - they understand how hard the subject is too! I can out of the exam feeling pretty rotten, but that was not reflected in my final mark :)
I wouldn't recommend doing any more study right now - It's 9pm, I'd chill out for an hour, then get an early night! Tomorrow, just look over your quotes, maybe have a discussion with one of your friends tomorrow morning, but nothing too hardcore!
Just remember to demonstrate your voice and your opinion tomorrow. Don't be afraid to disagree with the source (if you do that is!), and give yourself time to go over that source too - don't rush into writing the essay. Way better to write a 50 minute essay that's well thought out, than a 60 min one that is messy and confused.
Good luck! I'm sure you'll smash it <3
Susie
Hello! :D
For Section 2- if the question says 'to what extent' - do we need to explicitly provide an extent (limited, significant, etc) and also if it says 'to what extent does this statement apply' - are we meant to include the statement verbatim in our thesis?? or is just another way of saying 'to what extent is the view expressed...' ??
Also- does anyone have any tips for how to approach the questions of friday, some sort of plan of attack??
And for Section 1- is there a guide on how many ideas to include (Say 2-3 ideas?? for the whole essay...)
thanks so much ;D
hey! I have just begun the history ext course and realised I have literally no ideas for a major project ? I want to stray from focusing on a specific historical topic but more on conceptual ideas. I have been looking for other ideas, I have found few, like historicism vs presentism (and maybe looking at confederate monuments as an example) and history's writings on suffregates, but I really wanted to have more options?? If anyone has any ideas that you think might be interesting to research pls pls help !!! :-))Hey there,
I also have no idea how to write a good major work (or how it looks like) so it would actually be amazing if you could send me your own major works just so I can understand how it all works (only if you want to of course) !
thank u so much !!! <33
zay
Hello. I have recently begun the history extension course and am currently suck figuring out a topic forHey there,
the major project. I have a lot of ideas in mind, but the difficult part is narrowing them down to relate to historiography in some way. Do you have any tips for narrowing down topics, or making them more complex?
Also how am I exactly supposed to structure my essay? I've looked at some past essays and it seems really confusing as to how they are structured. Is there any set format for it?
I did narratology surrounding the Soong sisters (which is basically just a smart way of saying how history has warped interpretations of historical figures).
Or maybe you could do a specific time period?
Hope that helps!
Hey guys! So i am happy with doing the Rape of Nanjing/The Nanjing Massacre for my major work!
Doing some preliminary research I've come across a few ideas which I need advice/help on to find i guess a solid argument.
LochNess monster, do you mind giving me some information about narratology that sounds really interesting!!!!
IDEAS:
1. Perhaps the historiography of personality? (idk who though)
2. Ideology? Still have no clue
3. Representation of x (i have 0 clue rip)
4. Narratology of something
5. Japanese denialism of the event
6. The role of the media in recording the event or even manipulating, dikstorting and overexaggerating the event and e.g. casualties?
7. The lack of available and verifiable information
8. The reliability of photographic and oral survivor/victim evidence in the reconstruction of the past.
9. A study on a historian (IDEK WHO THIS WORRIES ME ALOT)
10. Was the Nanjing Massacre an ethnic genocide or simply a war for territory and nationalist ideologY??????? (what am i even doing wow)
Hopefully someone can give me some sort of guide or assistance in progressing forward! (I freally like the 9 listed above but idk how many i should include in my essay and what my overarching argument would be!)
Hello everyone, I'm just feeling a bit confused on what we can and cannot do for our major work according to NESA. I have had some people tell me that we are not allowed to do any topic that crosses over with anything that we could have been taught in years 11 and 12, while other people have told me that I can choose any topic as long as I personally have not studied it in class. I normally would not ask and just pick something totally different to what's in the courses, but I am interested in doing mine on the motivations of Pope Urban II for calling the First Crusade, which would overlap heavily with the Crusades subject for extension history, however we are doing JFK for our course. Similarly, I was thinking of doing something involving Order No. 227 instead if I can't do the crusades, but that might overlap with the Russian national study we're doing in modern history.
I was wondering if there were any regulations around crossing over evidence from ancient or modern history into extension history essays?
I've got an essay recently, just in class so no assessment mark, and it fits pretty clearly with some of the points raised about historian practice in Pompeii and Herculaneum that we've covered in ancient. Am I allowed to include it?
Also, are we allowed to cross over evidence from historiography into the case study and vice versa?
Hey,
Welcome to Atar Notes!! :D
You can definitely talk about any evidence from Ancient or Modern in your extension history essays, so you could include info about historians practises in Pompeii and Herculaneum. You can also add in info from your major work to your history extension essays if it fits. You are allowed to cross over evidence from historiography into your case study (and the other way around) as long its relevant.
Hope this helps! ;D
Hi!,Hey, Welcome to the forums!! :D
I was wondering with the major work, do we agree or disagree with evidence/ sources? can I challenge traditional views and form something that has a different perspective?
Thank you!
Hi all,Hey there,
I attended Susie's head start lecture for history extension in the January school holidays, which made me re-evaluate the major work completely, I'm so glad it did!
As a result I have decided on a topic but was wondering if anyone had any ideas of possible case studies I could use
My topic is:
- The manipulation of history for political gain and how that has impacted the documentation and teaching of history ( a case study I was thinking of was the teaching of Aboriginal history in Australian schools depending on what government is in power)
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated!
Hi Guys,Hey there,
I was wondering when writing an essay for question 1, how many historians should you know? Should I know all of the historians that I have learnt in class or should I know generally what each historian has done and written about?
Another question is if the question asks for 2 other relevant sources, do you just do two or do we do three? Because I've heard some poeple say to always do one more historian than the question requires.
Thank youuuuu :)
Heyo,Hey there,
Recently in class my teacher provided a stimulus for a what is history essay howeverI'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around i :Pt:
“Madness of the past are not petrified entities that can be plucked unchanged from their niches and placed under our modern microscopes. They appeared, perhaps, more like jellyfish that collapse and dry up when they are removed from the ambient sea water (12)”
It is suppose to link to issues surrounding historical interpretations however further elaboration is appreciated. Cheers :)
Hello,Hey,
I was just wandering, is extension history advisable (any pro/cons) and is it a lot of work? I'm confused on whether i should pick it up or not!
Thank youu :)
Hey couple of quick questions:Hey there,
1) Is it better to take short quotes from historians or just paraphrase them?
2) How should we actually study for history extension? Because all I have done is past papers and memorise historian quotes but i really don't know if that's right and/or enough
Thanks :)
Hi, I was just wondering in terms of the HSC and part 1 of the exam "What Is History" I am unsure how to structure my response as our school taught us to answer it in terms of the the context, purpose, methodology and construction of each historian (each a paragraph) but when browsing for hsc help I've seen structuring based on "is history a science or literature" or "can history ever be unbiased" and confused of whether that's what HSC markers are expecting and unsure how to do that with historians;Ranke, Gibbon, C.Hill, Bede and maybe Windshuttle/Reynolds?Hey there,
Thank you!
Hey there,
Welcome to the forums!
You should be structuring your essays thematically. This is to show the markers that you are directly engaging with the source (if this was Question 2, then it would be a different story). Your historians come in as examples to support your idea.
Let's take the 2018 source as an example:SpoilerHistory is a scholarly, not a political, activity, and while, as citizens, we certainly should act upon our political views, in writing history we have an absolute obligation to try to exclude them. Most historians, like most scientists, are motivated by the urge to find out. Much nonsense is talked about historians inevitably being ‘subjective’; the real point is that, being mere human beings, they are ‘fallible’*, and subject to many kinds of career and social pressures, or indeed common incompetence. Historians do disagree with each other in their interpretations, as do scientists. But history deals with human values, in a way the sciences do not, so there is more scope for differences in evaluation. Historical evidence is fragmentary, intractable**, and imperfect. Individual books and articles may clash with each other; there will always be areas where uncertainty persists, but steadily agreed knowledge emerges in the form of works of synthesis and high-quality textbooks. History, like the sciences, is a co-operative enterprise. Some historians today still seem to perceive historians (usually themselves) as great literary and media figures, as individual intellectual and moral giants giving leadership to ordinary readers. Such historians . . . tend to glory in their own subjectivity. By all means enjoy their literary flourishes, but always remember that the aims of a work of history are very different from those of a work of literature.
. . . It is fun, and it is becoming fashionable, for historians to work with novels, films, paintings, and even music. Doing this is not evidence of some superior virtue, or sensibility; in fact, most of what we know about most periods in the past will continue to come from the more conventional sources. Historians have had a habit of quoting odd lines from novels, as if these, in themselves, somehow provided some extra illumination. Worse, historians refer to characters in novels (or even films) as if they were real people. If cultural artefacts are to be used at all in serious historical writing (and I believe they should – they can be invaluable for attitudes, values, and quality of cultural life), they have to be used seriously. If one is going to refer to a novel or a film, one must provide the essential contextual information about the artefact, and its production and reception, to make the reference a genuine contribution to knowledge . . . When the temptation comes to make use of some cultural artefact the crucial questions to ask are ‘Does it tell us anything we didn’t know already?’, and, more probingly, ‘Does it tell us anything we couldn’t discover more readily from another source?’
. . . All human activities, including history, are culturally (or socially, the meanings in this instance are the same) influenced, but history is not ‘culturally constructed’ or ‘culturally determined’. Too many naďve statements have been made along the lines of ‘each age rewrites its history’. History is not a formation dance in which everybody in one period marches in one direction, and then, in the next, marches off in a different direction. What has happened in the history of historical writing is that the scope, and the sophistication, of history have steadily extended . . . In fact, no one type of history is . . . better than another: provided the fundamental, but ever-expanding methodologies are adhered to, it all depends upon which topics and questions are being addressed . . . At its very core history must be a scholarly discipline, based on thorough analysis of the evidence . . .
Here are the ideas I formed after reading the source:
- Politics play an important role in the construction of history (so I disagreed with the source)
- The democratisation of history has allowed the acceptance of unconventional forms of evidence (again, disagreed with the source)
- While history is based on analysing sources, it is important for historians to acknowledge the subjective nature of evidence as the post-modernist movement has introduced ideas in regards to linguistic turn
These points will be turned into topic sentences since I'll be discussing these ideas in my essay. The historians come in to back up my point. For example, I can talk about the increase of technology as a form of democratising history (e.g. State Library, family history). Or I can throw in Ranke to validate the source's idea on how history is essentially rigorous source analysis, but then contrast that with Hayden White, who argues that because history can be categorised into genres, the language itself can limit the historian from finding the truth.
Notice how I'm using the source to structure my ideas - that's what the HSC markers want you to do! In fact, sometimes I would quote the source in the first sentence of my paragraph to really emphasise that I'm engaging with the source. As a result, I'd recommend avoiding to structure your essay chronologically (i.e. one paragraph on Herodotus, one paragraph on Thucydides, another paragraph on Ranke etc.), but also avoiding to walk in with a prepared structure because your essays should be based on the source.
Hope this helps!
Hey guys, I am looking for an idea for the History project and I am thinking something to do with Croatia, possibly revisionist history. However, I don't really know anything about Croatian history and I was wondering if anyone had any topic ideas/questions relating to Croatia that I could look into?Hey there,
Thanks :)
Hey guys, I'm having trouble with starting my History Project. I have my question (although it will most likely change a little as I go), which is How does nationalistic discourse in Japan shape interpretations of the Nanjing Massacre? I have no idea how to start my introduction!!! Every singe past project I've seen starts differently, and I'm struggling with what to start with. Someone help please :-[
Hi! Does anyone have any quotes from any historian that are critiquing the annales?Hey there,
Any critiques on how I'm approaching my HRP question/critiques on my HRP question itself?Hey there,
Assess the extent to which Cold War historiography facilitates an understanding of modern German and Russian national identities
I've always been interested in the Cold War as well as how countries involved hold themselves now - almost 30 years after. As to avoid digression into 'content' rather than concepts, I made sure to place a focus on Cold War historiography shaping these present national identities. However, I'm still finding it quite difficult to drive my essay on historiographical concepts rather than diving into things like statistics on Germany - a nation still divided in the socioeconomic differences still present between east and west and how Germany's reunification was more so a reincorporation of the Communist East back into the Capitalist West, as well as Putin's 'megalomania' in filling the shoes of previous superpower USSR - perhaps driven by the revisionist school where US were seen as the aggressors in the CW?
Should I be using historians of the orthodox/revisionist/postrevisionist schools of CW historiography? Or should I also place some focus on the scarce historians I found who have discussed this topic of 'Cold War and national identities'?
Hi!! I can definitely help you with writing your essay!
Sooo the trial exams are a term away, and our teacher hasn't gone through how to write an essay for extension - should I be worried, because I AM!!!Hey there,
With the notion of truth remaining ambiguous throughout the decades, the purpose of history is no longer to search for an exact truth. This is due to the varying philosophies in regards to truth, resulting in conflicting perspectives and different versions of the past. Source A, an excerpt from David Hackett Fischer’s ‘Historians; Fallacies: Towards a Logic of Historical Thought’, explores the notion of truth as Fischer deliberates over ‘the impossible object (being) a quest for the whole truth.’ This is due to how a historian’s context critically influences the way they present history, impacting their selection of evidence and interpretation of evidence, compromising their ability to relay the truth. As a result, post-structuralist ideologies has had a significant impact on the way historiographers perceive history. Even if a historian were to reach some level of truth, it is greatly dependent on the questions they sought to answer and the evidence that provides them ‘the kinds of answers which are sought.’ On one hand, historians attempt to reach the truth by rigorous, empirical research- ranging from a conservative approach to exploring ‘people’s history.’ On the other hand, the politicisation of history has revealed a new purpose as various versions of the past has been used to support a historian’s political agenda. Thus, the truth has become an ambiguous term where various versions of the truth has emerged, thus, reaching the truth is no longer the ultimate goal
The development of post-structuralism has had a significant impact on the way historiographers respond to historiographical issues such as the inescapable nature of the historian’s context, thus resulting in the rejection of history as merely fiction. This is reflected in Source A where Fischer states ‘the idea that a historian can operate without the aid of preconceived questions… prejudices, presumptions, or general presuppositions of any kind is a false belief.’ As a result, these preconceptions can either impact their selection and interpretation of evidence, thus limiting their ability to reach ultimate truth. Jewish-American historian Deborah Lipstadt reflects this notion as her methodology in researching Holocaust deniers has prompted the discussion of Jewish nationalism due to her refusal to interact with Holocaust deniers. As a result, her presentation of this topic remains limited and subjective due to her reliance on preconceived notions of the Holocaust as a result of the heavy influence of Jewish activism. Historiographical issues such as inescapable context has therefore made it difficult for historians to discover the truth due to the historian’s clouded judgement. These issues have significantly impacted the development of post-structuralist ideologies. Historiographers such as Hayden White has described history to be a ‘coherent and ordered representation of events or developments in sequential time.’ This has resulted in White categorising historians based on their style of writing history, the four narrative structures being: satire, romance, tragedy and comedy. The categorisation of historians in literary genres reflects how language limits historians in reaching the truth due to the changing nature of linguistics. This notion of varying presentations of history as a fictional work of the historian can be traced back to Herodotus, arguably the precursor to postmodernist thinking. His philosophy of the purpose of history being to preserve a memory is reflected by his methodology of interviewing participants of the Persian War. Nevertheless, his philosophy on truth is revealed through the way he narrates the story, including various stories from different eye witnesses, regardless whether the stories were believable or not as Herodotus believed that the audience decides their version of truth. However, it is the the heavy influence of Homeric traditions that has allowed him to become a precursor of post-structuralist thinking due to how his language reflects the fictionalised nature of history White discusses. Thus, the enigmatic nature of truth has allowed historians to re-evaluate the purpose of history due to the inevitability of limitations that can negate the possibility of reaching an exact truth. This reflects how historians have various philosophies in regards to the purpose of history, as seen in the emergence of the democratisation and politicisation of history.
heyy can someone pls pls tell me, roughly if u get a 80% for ur major work, does it get scaled up or down? whats normally an average for major work marks anyway
s? and normally if i want like an overall 38/50 wha
t raw marks out of 25 do i need for each essa
y? thanks😭😭
Does anyone know where I can find a copy of the Source Book of Readings? It doesn't appear to be on the NESA or BOS websites anymore.Hey,
Would anyone happen to have any Constructing History notes either for sale or for free. Please let me know!Hey, Welcome to the forums! :D
Hi, year 11 going to year 12 here. I was wondering what equipment you recommend for history extension in general and what helped you when doing your major work? My school hasn't provided an equipment list and I wanted advice from people who have done the course.