Hi Susie,
Thanks for agreeing to take a look at my essay, it's much appreciated! :)
Garcia
P.S. Note that I haven't finalised my footnotes
Hey,Hey damecj! Sure thing :) My comments are in the spoiler below!!
Just got this draft for extension history, I was wondering if you could take a look at. Thank you very much!!!
Hey damecj! Sure thing :) My comments are in the spoiler below!!SpoilerEvaluate the differing reasoning between schools of history in the justification of the use of nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki A girl in my class did pretty much the exact same question! This isn't feedback haha just random coincidence lol
The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945 respectively were the first uses of nuclear weaponry in history. Your first sentences is setting this essay up to be a history essay and not a historiography essay! Think more broadly - what is the greater, historiographical issue that you are assessing? You need to make a judgement with your first sentence, NOT provide context. Then United States President Harry Truman made the decision to use nuclear technology in wartime again still waiting for the historiography - 2 sentences in and I'm still looking at a recount of the events - remember that this is EXTENSION not modern history (even in modern you'll want to be making your first sentence a judgement however). The history surrounding bombings is one based highly on interpretation, which is demonstrated through the differing views of schools of history. Better - this is historiography. If anything this should have been your first sentence! However I want more - everything is based on interpretation. As EH Carr said, "interpretation is the lifeblood of history" - what makes Hiroshima and Nagasaki any different? Why should I care that this is an interpretation, if I know that all history is an interpretation? I think your argument needs to be stronger and more unique.Harry Truman thePresident Truman and Henry Stimson his advisor provide pivotal historiography not sure historiography is the best word to use here - that'd imply that they wrote history. 'Evidence' is probably better for the empirical and orthodox don't like the use of the term orthodox here - I don't think empiricist = orthodox historians such as Robert Maddox. The historians that display a more annales brand of history such as Paul Ham and Gar Alperovitz aim to provide an account more based on the social factors so... social history? Mention the bottom-up approach!, It is important however to consider the blended approaches of the bombings, this is seen through the work of Tsuyoshi Hasegawa a Japanese historian who provides a combined study that proposes to provided a non-bias account of events proposes - but does she actually? Surely not. Hopefully you rip them to shreds ;) The different is this an unfinished sentence?.Historians largely accept the context of the historiographical debates surrounding the decision to use nuclear weapons. Bold statement - you need to back this up, at least through footnotes. Truman was aware of the success of the Manhattan Project: the development of the world’s first nuclear bomb. Writing in his diaries on 17 June 1945, Truman recorded:
All
I have to decide Japanese strategy - shall we invade Japan proper or shall we bomb and blockade? That is my hardest decision to date. But I'll make it when I have all the facts.
Truman knew the gravity of the decision that he was making and was aware of the power he had. This is looking like a history essay.On 25 July, Truman talked about his plans to end the war, stating that Stimson “and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement”, the Potsdam Proclamation, “asking the Japanese to surrender and save lives”. The American leader continued:
I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.
History essay - you're writing a history essay. I'll elaborate more on this in my final comments, but to stop this I suggest using Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a case study rather than the dominating question. You'll still mainly be talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just by broadening your scope you are allowing yourself more opportunity to delve into the historiographical concepts!
Truman acknowledged the power of the bombs, possibly the most crucial element in ending the war. The Potsdam Proclamation was a crucial factor in Truman’s decision.. History essay. The declaration stated thirteen terms focused around the Japanese surrender, clearly stating that “the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction”. These terms reinforced Truman’s later statement:
We have used it in order to shorten the agony of young Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us.
It is pivotal in looking at the bombings to look at the reports made by Henry Stimson. Henry Stimson was the Secretary of War during the time of the atomic bomb as he had direct personal control of the project. Better, but still not enough historiography. Stimson was in charge of all the steps in the bombings and was pivotal in the verdict to eventually drop the bombs. Stimson was the main advisor to the president in the dropping of the bomb and directly advised the President on the issue. Last two sentences = history essay, and were also quite repetitive. Stimson wrote ‘’The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb’’ in February of 1947 in Harper’s Magazine. He was coming under increasing pressure for his decision from highly respected public figures and the article aims to justify in his reasoning in dropping the bomb.Go into this more. This is historiography - motive! Identically to Harry Truman the motivation according to Stimson was the
‘’Premier of Japan, Suzuki, rejected the Potsdam ultimatum by announcing that was “unworthy of public notice.” In the face of this rejection we could only proceed to demonstrate that the ultimatum had meant exactly what it said.’’
At present you are just listing interpretations to me. I need you to analyse. Also - what is your structure? It's not clear.
Indicating that like the reasoning for from? Check grammar - a few silly mistakes like this can be found throughout. Truman the rejection of the Potsdam Declaration was a major part of the final decision.History. In his personal summary Stimson details his own personal views on the issue and his own rationalization. ‘’My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise.’’ While describing it as the ‘’least abhorrent choice’’. Throughout the article Stimson displays obvious bias NEVER USE THIS WORD IN A HISTORY EXTENSION ESSAY. Sorry to be so forceful, but you will get roasted for something like this. In history extension you learn that ALL SOURCES ARE BIASED, so just saying "obvious bias" is a moot point. Though I love that you are going into more historiography now, you need to go beyond this type of thinking - analyse the bias, critically assess it's significance, what is supports, what it neglects, how it was formed - don't just tell me it exists, because, I know it exists. and exhibits that the American justification was the rejection of the Potsdam declaration and to limit the causalities. Stimson wrote this article to influence public perception and validate the reasoning of both Truman and Stimson. This again needs to be explored more than context (however even then I'm sure there are a lot better historiographical concepts out there for you to explore that go beyond just motive) It is evident that the arguments and views presented by Stimson align heavily to those of orthodox historians such as Robert Maddox. FINALLY A HISTORIAN! More please :)
Historian Robert Maddox adopts an empirical approach, preferring to use official government documents and similar sources to form arguments there is more to empiricism than just the sources they use - objectivity?. Maddox argues that evidence from an empirical standpoint indicates President Truman had ‘’no other viable or sensible alternative to dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki’’. Maddox rejects suggestions that top advisors urged Truman not to use the bomb, based on their ‘’moral and military reservations”. Maddox interprets the records officials such as Truman and Stimson and makes his own source of history thats a weird way of putting it - rather than 'own source of history' maybe interpretation? Forms his own perspective? from these records. Maddox is responsible for writing a detailed article expressing his insights and opinions in his piece ‘’The Biggest Decision: Why We Had To Drop The Atomic Bomb.’’
Maddox debuts arguments provided by more annales historians and in doing aims to deliver more credibility into his own response. Why does this make him more credible?? Also - fix up this sentence, it reads a bit strange. Maddox dismisses the use of The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS ) stating that this ‘’This or any other document based on information available only after the war ended is irrelevant with regard to what Truman could have known at the time.’’ Maddox concludes his article by stating ‘’Available evidence points to the conclusion that he acted for the reason he said he did: to end a bloody war that would have become far bloodier had invasion proved necessary.’’ Through the empirical evidence used by Maddox he comes to the conclusion that Truman achieved his objectives and is justified in his reasoning in the dropping of the bombs. This is strongly contrasted by the views of annalist historians.
Again, you are just listing interpretations. Where is your own voice/judgement/opinion?
Interpretations of the atomic bombings are constantly changing due to new evidence, personal bias and changing societal values thus correlating to many different approaches and sentiments towards the issue. MUST BETTER! You need to clean up the sentence a bit, and maybe make a more explicit link to the concepts (Also don't say bias) but overall this is a stronger opening sentence. This is seen through historical revisionism. Yay a concept! Historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record. It usually means challenging the orthodox views held by professional scholars about an event, introducing new evidence, or restating the motivations and decisions of participants. So much better - requires integration, but still so much better. This is identified through the writings of Paul Ham and Gar Alperovitz, revisionist historians who contradict the statements of Harry Truman regarding justification of the nuclear attacks. The United States’ Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) provides a pivotal source for revisionist historians, providing the base for their arguments. The USSBS stated that based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November,
Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
Gar Alperovitz, centralized around the fact that Japan was on the brink of surrendering before the bombs were dropped. Grammar and sentence structure needs work. He argues that even after the there were. Again - grammar and sentence structure. An author who backs up "backs up" is too colloquial - "is supported by" is better the claims from Paul Ham is. GRAMMAR. Alperovitz’s work takes an annalist approach that reviews all the surrounding factors such as economic and social ones "ones" again too casual. "He takes into account the surrounding economic and social factors," is better while also using a range of sources by range what do you mean? Just lots of sources, sources from a lot of different perspectives? Different source types? Be specific.. Alperovitz centres his argument on the common misconceptions held by the American public:
What is important is whether, when the bomb was used, the President and his top advisers understood that it was not required to avoid a long and costly invasion, as they later claimed and as most Americans still believe.
Alperovitz declares that American public understanding of the attacks is entirely based on what the government disclosed. And what affect does this have? He disputes the fact that the bombs were dropped for the sole purpose of stopping an American invasion of the Japanese home islands and therefore reducing the numbers of American casualties, a position held by orthodox historians and most of the American public. Alperovitz then discusses his reasoning behind why the US dropped the bombs and the statement that forms the basis of his arguments in different publications. ‘Truman and his advisors saw this bomb as a diplomatic lever’’. While Gar Alperovitz makes a variety of different arguments regarding the use of nuclear warfare, it is clear that Alperovitz possess a strong hatred. Thus creating a sense of bias NOPE in his work and evidently by paraphrasing quotes therefore selecting sources that benefit and enhance his argument is that not what all the other historians are doing though? Do you really think that the other historians are reading everything? Or are they actively looking for sources that back up their arguments? Look into EH Carr's fishing analogy in 'What is History?'.. This selection of sources is of course necessary for Alperovitz to educate readers of what he believes and showing them his purpose in doing so.
In a later interview Gar DON'T USE FIRST NAMES. further supports his position by stating:
‘’Truman and his Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes, were struck by the notion that ending World War II without dropping the atomic bomb would not have brought added strength to American diplomacy against the Soviet Union in Europe.’’
Alperovitz use of interview provides him with the opportunity to be able to change his approach and concept. However, he takes his chance to strengthen his argument and be able to present his argument and findings in a number of platforms. The notion of diplomatic lever is one common among annalist history. Paul Ham demonstrates this line of thought in Hiroshima Nagasaki. Ham delves into the numerous complications that forced the Japanese Empire into surrendering while discussing how the nuclear attacks were militarily unnecessary. Paul Ham discusses his purpose in creating his source of history in an interview. ‘I have always felt that there is something wrong with American narratives that attempt to justify the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in a nuclear holocaust.’ But where is your own voice? What is your opinion upon these different interpretations? Do you notice any patterns? Links?
Ham’s work may be perceived to draw upon Annalist, Empiricist and postmodernist historiography. Awesome! Hiroshima Nagasaki goes in-depth of of? grammar. the social impacts of the attacks while also looking at the different factors that caused the Japanese to withdraw from World War Two. I really recommend looking at these two concepts:
Bottom Up History/Social History and 'Orientalism' by Edward Said. The girl from my school who did this question used Said a lot, along with Howard Zinn. He states that following the Potsdam Conference Tokyo initially pinned its hopes on diplomacy with the Soviets, hoping that they might water down the American demand for unconditional surrender. Once their hopes were dashed, the two factors that motivated their surrender to the Americans were, on the one hand, “the regime’s suffocating fear of Russia” and “the spectre of a communist Japan” and, on the other, the American guarantee that the status of the emperor in a post-war Japan would be preserved, delivered in the so-called ‘’Byrnes Note’’ after the attacks. Paul Ham’s conclusion is that the most essential factor in the Japanese surrender was Stalin’s sudden entry into war in the pacific. The threat of one million troops invading into Japanese territory delivered in Ham’s opinion the deciding factor in the surrender. As Ham states ‘The Japanese people had kept their Emperor and lost an empire.’ Where is the postmodernists? Did you mention them? Or the other two? If so it definitely wasn't obvious enough.
The distinction between the conclusions formed by the orthodox historians and revionists displays the true extent of the differing views on the same issue demonstrating how different approaches to history can lead to extremely different conclusion. Through recording and construction of history it is evident that the orthodox and revionist historians have strongly contrasting views. Thus, it is necessary to research more blended approaches to history. The blended approach of history allows for one more rounded argument while trying to avoid bias. But it can't? Bias is unavoidable. I'm really hoping that you rip this method to shreds.
A more blended approach to the issue is demonstrated in the work of J. Samuel Walker in his world-renowned book ‘’Prompt and utter destruction’’. He strives to provide an un-biased account. However it is almost impossible in history to create a truly non-bias piece of work YES YES YES YES YES, J. Samuel Walker attempts to deliver an unbiased account of the true reasons for the atomic bombings. Sentence structure - you lost me. You started off so strong, but it fell weak at the end. J. Samuel Walker is an American historian who also blends the accounts of both empirical sources but other social factors that contributed to the dropping of the bombs. He provides his attitudes and views in his publication ‘Prompt and utter destruction.’ You've already mentioned this. Walker’s arguments corresponds with that of revionist history as he states "the hope that the bomb would help advance American diplomatic objectives, especially in addressing the growing differences with the Soviet Union’ and ‘’The evidence suggests, in fact, that Truman and other American leaders began to act more assertive toward the Soviet Union once they learned details of the bomb's power.’’ except that if he is trying to provide an objective account then he is also align with the empircists - that's kinda their thing.Walker provides a concise argument in his hundred word publication and provides his finding:
‘The bomb was necessary to end the war at the earliest possible moment. The bomb was necessary to save the lives of American troops, perhaps numbering in the several thousands. The bomb was probably not necessary to end the war within a fairly short time without an invasion of Japan. The bomb was not necessary to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of American troops.’’ Walker’s findings offer distinguishing response but ultimately debunks not a word you should be using in history extension - too casual. the prominent arguments offered by the empirical and more orthodox historians. Walker does not assert that he has reached the answer to the long-winded debate as he concludes his publication "The decision to use atomic bombs against Japan was such a momentous event in bringing about the end of World War II and in shaping the postwar world that it should continue to be studied, evaluated, and debated and "The issue of whether the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sound, proper, and justifiable actions must be approached by fully considering the situation facing American and Japanese leaders in the summer of 1945 and by banishing the myths that have taken hold since then." As seen through the conclusive statements Walker believes that the issue is one of continuance and one that needs to be further researched.
The debate surrounding the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been one of the most controversial subjects in the modern world. There is a strong distinction between the reasoning of Truman, Stimson and Maddox who use empirical sources to provide a more orthodox history and the revionist historians. The revionist historians utilize an annalist type school of history to strive to provide a history relying on the social factors as well as the empirical resources. This is portrayed through the sources of history provided by Alperovitz and Ham who offer similarly conclusions based on the their annalist style. The blending of both sides is demonstrated through the publication of J. Samuel Walker who offers a conclusion based on his in depth study of the potential reasons used by the Americans. The comparison between the different schools of history is expected as the possess different ways in approaching history thus providing different records and construction of history.
Okay so, I'm going to be 100% honest with you here, because this is your HSC and I'm assuming you didn't ask for feedback in order to get a sugar coated response. This needs a lot of work. As I have suggested throughout my feedback, for a significant chunk of your essay you are writing history, and not historiography - providing me an account of the events, and the opinions of key figures. Though this improves as the essay progresses, once you reach the more "historiography" part, it is more of a description of the different interpretations, a list of opinions, rather than an analysis. I NEED to see YOUR OWN judgement shining through, or else you are essentially just writing the history of historiography.
I know this is probably not what you want to here, but you need a knew structure - potentially a new question. Now please don't freak out - you can keep much of your research the same, and the general topic. However, rather than including Hiroshima and Nagasaki as part of the question, I suggest that you instead use them as a case study to demonstrate a wider historiographical concept (as "different interpretations" is a bit too broad". The concepts were severely lacking in your response, when they are what should really be shining through. Scroll down and have a read of my response to Maraos' first question from today on the History Extension Question Thread. Covers pretty much exactly what I intend to say here.
Historiography - you need WAY more of it. It's not enough to just list historians who have an opinion on your topic. Go broader and look at historiographers. It actually looks better to use the concepts and ideas that they formulate, and you yourself attach them and demonstrate their significance though the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing. I'd also suggest integrating your sources and quotes better, they break up the essay too much, making it difficult to read and understand coherently.
Along with this - Grammar and sentence structure was really pulling you down in some parts, along with language choices. This may seem like a small thing, but it is actually really important in order to maintain a level of sophistication required to do well.
I think this covers everything I was thinking! I really hope I didn't come across too harsh, but in the end I figured it's important that you know rather than I sugar coat things and you end up with a lower mark than you are capable of - because I know that you are more than capable of pulling off a fantastic response! Just tweak some things and pack in those historiographical concepts and you'll be laughing! If you need any help with anything, or are still confused please let me know.
Susie :)
So glad you found it useful! :) Good luck! Let me know if you need anything :)
Thank you very much, this is very helpful
Hi Susie, absolutely any feedback would be immmensely appreciated !! Thank you so much in advance :D
Anyone able to mark my major and annotated bib for this friday? :oFeel free to post it here and I'll happily take a look :)
Hey Susie,hey maddy! Absolutely happy to have a look, however before I can you're going to have to post around the forums a little bit more :) 15 posts = 1 essay marked! From personal experience as a student last year, super easy to generate that amount of posts (and rewarding in so many more ways than just essay marking!)
I was wondering if you could look at my essay for me I'm still working on my conclusion and any feedback would be greatly appreciated!
Lets have a look shall we :D My comments are in the spoiler:SpoilerThere are innumerable paths in the pursuit for historical truth. Nice judgement - clear, strong and direct! Historical works that combine analytical and imaginative history demonstrate how the democratisation of History when you're talking about the disclipline of History use a capital Hhas allowed for the contribution of interdisciplinary methodologies nice! to contemporary historical thought. Subsequently, historians have transcended their obligation to empirical evidence and scientific method, and pursue new forms of history in the revision of traditional perspectives. looking really good so far Angie! The use of imaginative re-enactment in historical works infers the opportunity to “add an imaginative dimension that allows the work to speak to the whole persona and the emotional dimensions of the reader, not only to the intellectual or the rational faculties”. Simon Schama’s schama llama! oh god this takes me back to the Western Imperialism case study hahaclaim that “Without a grip on evidence, the historical novel is empty fable; without imaginative empathy, history is all bones and no flesh and blood” also articulates that the collaboration between science and fiction has the potential to enhance the insights of historiographical endeavors. Hence, fiction through the use of the historian’s imagination can, to a large extent, be used as a legitimate historiographical tool. Nice work Angie! A fab introduction. I do have a few points though - I feel as though you have neglected the opposition. There are DEFINITELY some significant historiographical problems with the integration of imagination. You don't have to agree with them, but it appears a bit as if you are cherry picking here. Even if it is just a "despite fears that the legitimisation of imagination will...." - a sentence like that will then allow you to assert your own position. You could also mention, even briefly the inevitability of imagination (however that isn't 100% necessary - just a thought :) ) Along with this, though you have developed your argument well, I have no clue what your paragraphs are going to be on specifically! Your intro should outline your essay in some capacity :) But overall, great work! I absolutely LOVE how historiographical you are being :)
Historiographical debate relating to the reliability of fiction in history highlights an imperative tension between science and art. The supposedly paradoxical use of imaginary scenarios, which are subjective by nature, in a historian’s endeavour to portray a nonpartisan, reliable history suggests that fiction inherently contradicts the laws of historical investigation. Fantastic! Your language is also really strong! This beckons the question: is the reliability of fictional renditions of history inevitably compromised? Popular productions of historical fiction such as Braveheart, Pearl Harbour and Disney’s Pocahontas have cultivated heavy criticism from the historical community due to their portrayals of the past that have “almost totally sacrificed historical accuracy for epic adventure”, reiterating the potential dangers of pioneering histories for the entertainment of vast public audiences. Such texts invite debate about being termed either as historical fiction or ‘fictionalised history’, suggesting that their misleading portrayals of the past obscure public historical thought. This is great. For example, Peter Weir’s 1981 film Gallipoli demonstrates this through its perpetration of the ANZAC legend In your research of this have you heard about the 'ANZAC myth'? It is a big historiographical debate surrounding to what extent the Anzacs actually contributed to the war effort. There is pretty strong evidence to say that, though undoubtedly brave individuals who deserve immense respect for the sacrifices they made, in the grand scheme of WW1 Australia contributed very little, however our national history presents a very different image: That "we" were the reason the Allies won the war The Canadians present a very similar view of their own soldiers. As to the Americans, etc. etc. All nations present a romanticised and glorified version of history, which may be interesting to include here - you do touch on it, but I just wanted to make sure you knew about it explictly :) Here is an article about it if you want to have a read! . The historiography of the ANZAC legend has been defined by a chauvinistic portrayal of Australian soldiers likened to Arcadian warriors and of British officials as antagonists who ‘drank tea on the beach’ during the failed Gallipoli offensive in World War II. Weir encourages this narrative of national history in the film through the manipulation of historical events with a creative license, consequently engendering parochial mindsets about the war to a broad public audience, as Australia historian Peter Cochrane claims, “Drape “Anzac” over an argument and, like a magic cloak, the argument is sacrosanct”. This indicates the dangers of creative freedom in contributions to historical thought, as such works could compromise the reliability of historiographical research are you suggesting here that it'll end up a bit like Chinese whispers? In that it compromises historical research in the future by adding an element of fiction that becomes a supposed truth, which then infiltrates historical works in the future? If so great argument - but I'd love you to elaborate a tad more :) Just one more sentence.. Hence, this evokes discussion about whether or not fiction, which is innately a historian’s own invention, can have any contribution to valid historiography I'd used 'The Discipline of History' instead of valid historiography here..
It would be overly simplistic to conclude that all historical fiction is innately unreliable and that its contributions to contemporary historical thought are invalid I'd probably say 'entirely' invalid - just because there are still some pretty heavy historiographical issues that you'd need to iron out. This argument made a significant emergence after David Starkey’s who is he? A historian? historiographer? historical novelist? rando? What did he write? remark from 2013:
"We really should stop taking historical novelists seriously as historians. The idea that they have authority is ludicrous. They are very good at imagining character: that’s why the novels sell. They have no authority when it comes to the handling of historical sources. Full stop.”
This statement was made in reference to Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall, which documents the rise of Thomas Cromwell in the court of King Henry VIII and has been acclaimed as one of the best historical novels of all time. Mantel’s claim “I step aside form all pretenses of accuracy and authenticity” refutes Starkey’s critique as she separates the role of the novelist from that of the historian, yet her statement “That my novels are set in the sixteenth century does not mean I am trying to describe the century accurately; it means I am searching for meanings in human experience that are common to both times, and thus timeless, and have resonance in all our lives” also indicates the distinct contribution that fiction offers to historical thought, which is the opportunity to revise traditional perspectives through imaginative empathy. Awesome! This is really well researched, good job :)
Imaginative empathy refers to a historian’s capacity to make judgments about the past and historical figures by ‘stepping into their shoes’, since something as complex and multifaceted as the human experience cannot be entirely comprehended through statistical evidence and scientific method. Fabulous. This notion is explored in R.G. Collingwood’s ‘The Idea of History’ (1946) what type of historiographer is he?, which challenges the methodology of positivist philosophers by suggesting that history cannot be understood along narrow scientific terms, since historical knowledge is not rooted in a theoretical model. Rather, he explains that “all history is the history of thought (…) and therefore all history is the re-enactment of past thought in the historian’s own mind”, inferring that history is by necessity a product of philosophical thought and imaginative reconstruction, relying on fictional prospects to gain full insight into an event in question. Great integration and explanation of a quote :) This historiographical evolution is inextricably linked to the emergence of postmodernism in the mid to late 20th century, following a period where philosophy favoured various metanarratives of progress such as positivist science and Marxism 'marxist conception of history.'. In a sociological view, postmodernism is ascribed to wider communication and the ability to abandon standardized mass production, indicating how the accessibility of telecommunications and popular culture in modern society has evolved the nature of historiographical studies. Ultimately, this transformation of society and historiography due to postmodernism infers the gradual disappearance of Rankean-style empiricism, as new historical methodologies such as imaginative reenactment will become more prominent and play an influential role in historiography.
Furthermore, postmodernisthistorianshistoriographers such as Hayden White similarly argue that the historian’s imagination inevitably plays a fundamental role in their construction of history, “as historical text is in essence nothing more than a literary text, a poetic creation as deeply involved in the imagination as the novel” I used this quote in my major work too! Such a good one :). By suggesting that all historical works embody the same ‘novelisation’ of the past as historical fiction by using imaginative re-enactment, this notion challenges critics such as David Starkey who accentuate the invalidity of historical novels i'd also mention here that it doesn't just challenge the invalidity of historical novels, but the validity of history! I think that is the really big thing here - if both are a novelisation of the past, then is there really a distinction between them? Is one really better than the other?. White’s ‘Metahistory’ (1973) imbues the need for narrative to shape historical fact through the concept of ‘emplotment’, which explains that all historical works adhere to a style of literary culture such as romance, tragedy or satire. 'Tropes!' This is a hard concept to get your head around - well done :) Took me forever to understand. White reinforces the postmodernist perspective that the past is not recoverable beyond text, and hence indicates that a historian’s construction of history is an imaginative reenactment, grounded in evidence, but failing to capture the authentic entirety of the past. Thus, as historians have noted, “Metahistory reflected a shift of emphasis from an unqualified freedom of the imagination to linguistic modes through which that imagination defines what counts as real history”. Thus, the legitimacy of fiction as a historiographical tool is fortified by the necessity to engage with a historian’s imagination in all historical works. I LOVE the integration of different historiographical schools of thought here Angie, particularly Hayden White. Very well done :)
The importance of a historian’s use of imaginative empathy is demonstrated by the historiography of Anne Boleyn. Characterised by a vast spectrum of interpretations, the life – and in particular the enigmatic death – of King Henry VIII’s second wife reveals how the novelisation of historical figures has evolved over time with a greater emphasis on imaginative empathy. The timeless intrigue of Anne Boleyn’s rise and fall in historical fiction indicates her status as one of the most divisive figures of history, having accumulated a wide range of portrayals over time including that of a maleficent home-wrecker, a Protestant martyr, a tragic heroine and even a witch. Within this, it becomes evident that a lack of imaginative empathy has constructed and continuously reconstructed the historiography of Anne Boleyn, as “what remains is a patched together narrative that variously reflects the biases of staunch enemies or idealising rehabilitators of her image”. Reinforcing this tradition of prevalent bias don't just say 'bias' - explain it. How are they biased, why are they in particular so quick to hate her., the illustration of Anne Boleyn by an English Catholic Priest, Nicholas Sanders, describes “a projecting tooth under the upper lip, and on her right hand six fingers”. Hmmm. I get what you're saying here, however it sounds like your saying that they lack Imaginative Empathy, which furthermore suggests that you think that the only legitimate presentation of Anne Boleyn is a sympathetic one. That might not be the case, but that is what it is reading like so you may want to fix some stuff up. Remember that everything is biased - including those who present her positvely. This portrayal would henceforth lay the foundation for an enduring image of Anne Boleyn as a villainous character, translated in contemporary works such as Philippa Gregory’s popular historical novel ‘The Other Boleyn Girl’ (2001). Irrespective of her claim that historical accuracy is the hallmark of her writing, Gregory’ work has been critiqued within the historical community for depicting in the novel that Anne was guilty of the charges of adultery, treason and incest, which led to her execution in 1536. This storyline neglects an abundance of evidence reiterating that Anne was innocent of her charges, and was framed to eliminate her as a threat to Henry’s plans for religion in England or alternatively because she was unable to produce a male heir. This brings the validity of historical imagination into question through the notion that it allows narratives to manipulate historiography, particularly in endeavors for entertainment at the cost of reliable judgment. However, imaginative empathy also has the potential to counteract the development of such narratives, such as through works about Anne Boleyn that aim to “to restore a restless, learned, freethinking and ambitious but nondemonic woman to the throne of the public imagination”. Hmmm. In all honestly I'm not 100% sure of the necessity of this paragraph. I feel as though you are kind of repeating yourself a bit? No new arguments were raised + I got a bit confused as to what you were arguing (re. I wasn't sure whether you were saying they used imaginative empathy or not?). So far this has been your weakest paragraph - It's not bad, but it is your weakest.
Susan Bordo’s ‘The Creation of Anne Boleyn’ is an amalgamation of cultural history and biography that highlights the way in which Anne’s historiography has drastically evolved over time, culminating in a lack of clarity about her true character. Aiming to strip away the “sedimented mythology turned into ‘history’ by decades of repetition”, Bordo represents the efforts of many historians and feminist philosophers with ambitions to revive images of King Henry VIII’s six wives through imaginative empathy. The common rhetoric of “divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived” characterises the dominating narrative of Henry VIII’s six consorts, whereby they are all traditionally defined by the way their lives ended rather than how they were lived. This is much better. However, this notion is deconstructed and refuted by one of the earliest full-length novelisations of Anne Boleyn’s life, ‘The Favor of Kings’ (1912). Challenging traditional historiography’s selective perceptions of Anne Boleyn through lenses of villainy or martyrdom, the author Mary Hastings Bradley asserted her commitment to “actual situations . . . real incident, and dialogue” and a fundamental purpose to not “enter an historical controversy” but rather “to suggest the truth of the colours of the picture I have tried to paint, and to offer the Anne Boleyn of this story, a very human girl”. Bradley’s use of imaginative empathy in an appeal to the fundamental ‘human experience’ aspects of history is imbued by her venture into the unexplored areas of Anne’s childhood and development as a young woman. Bradley comprehends Anne’s self-autonomy and salient nonconforming attitude, as informed by testimonial evidence of her personality, by imagining her thoughts. This use of imaginative empathy deviates from the oversimplifications of Anne as either a formidable villainess or an impotent heroine, and introduces a more intricate depiction that appeals to the intrinsic ‘humanness’ and emotional complexity of Anne as an individual. Therefore, fiction can be used as a legitimate historiographical tool to comprehend the quintessential nature of human experience in history. I think this paragraph and the previous paragraph need to be merged and shortened. Though this one was definitely better, they still aren't presenting any new arguments, and focus a little bit too much on this history rather than the historiography (not too much - it is still very firmly historiography, just in comparison to the rest of your essay).
The distinctions between historical novelists and historians have been blurred through their shared purpose to “seek out stories from the past, engage with them creatively, sort and interrogate them, pull them into some kind of narrative shape and interpret them for readers.” An example of these fundamental similarities is imbued in works of social history YES YES YES YES YES, such as those by historians Simon Schama and E.P. Thompson ooo love this guy - I remember when I did my major work on a very similar topic my teacher told me I had to find a way to demonstrate his use of imagination. It was very tricky because he's just so good at what he does, but I managed to in the end - lets see if you managed the same 8). Social history, as the gateway between current and past human experience used to challenge top-down history, enables historians to reimagine the past and fill in the gaps of the historical record why would the need to reimagine the past? What are social historians missing - sources! The history of non-white men is just blatantly not discussed in much depth throughout history. It's really hard to write about the lower classes of Rome, because there is very little surviving evidence as no body considered it worth of surviving. I suggest having a quick read of some of John Vincent's arguments about the nature of evidence and history! Furthermore, what is their purpose for reimagining the past as a social historian? To give a voice to the voiceless ie. their purpose is political more so than to present an objective look at the past. These are all things that I hope you consider and integrate!. Simon Schama’s ‘Dead Certainties’ (1991) emerges as a prominent work of history that incorporates a narrative style and imagined scenarios, which are fundamentally advised by archival sources and Schama’s experience in historical analysis. As a departure from Schama’s conventional style of historical works, such as his award-winning book ‘Citizens’ on the French Revolution, ‘Dead Certainties’ could even analyse the title here - 'Dead Certainties'? is punctuated by it’s “insightful meditation on the essential elusiveness of historical truth and on the need for creative invention in historical scholarship and writing”. Reviewed by some as “an imaginative, spellbinding work that reminds us that history is more art than science” and others as a reckless detachment from the rules of the historian, the book’s reception reflects ongoing historiographical debate about the role of imaginative empathy in history. However, in his assertion that “history needs to sound less like newspaper editorials and more like poetry”, Schama implies the fundamentality of a ‘novel’ style to explore the narrative of the past, as it involves the nonlinear nature of human experience. Hence, linking to Hayden White’s explanation of history inevitably as a novelization of the past, Schama pursues the opportunity to fully engage this understanding, revising conventional histories and addressing deeper enigmas, as he explains:
“What this little pair of fictions was meant to do was to tear out the seams from the finished fabric of history writing, let them fray and hang and have readers decide for themselves whether the thing can ever be satisfactorily put back together.”
Thus, Schama’s revision of “the finished fabric” of traditional, progressive metanarratives has significant implications for social history. Specifically, the top-down perspective of ‘Great Men’ that is perpetrated in conventional histories can be challenged by the use of imaginative empathy, as it functions to uncover new insights and expand beyond parochial histories that are, as John Vincent YAYAYAYAYAY I was hoping he'd be mentioned ;) He's one of my favourite historiographers - used him a lot in not only my major work but also in my 'What is History' essays! articulates, “deeply male, non-young, and about the rich and famous, not the poor”. A prime example of this transcendence of top-down history is E.P. Thompson’s ‘The Making of the English Working Class’ (1963) - a book often identified as a watershed in the field of social history for utilising the ‘scraps’ of the historical record. Through his stated aim of “seeking to rescue the poor stockinger, the Luddite cropper, the ‘obsolete’ handloom weaver, the ‘utopian’ artisan…” Thompson elucidated aspects of the human experience seldom comprehended in British historiography. Thomson’s use of imaginative re-enactment in ‘The Making’ is presented in a reoccurring pattern - beginning sections with an anecdote or story about an individual or event, and then expanding on the broader implications and context of this story to illuminate large-scale social processes. The beneficial impact of this approach on Thompson’s construction of history is inferred by the “originality, vigour and iconoclasm” that is associated with ‘The Making’. Hence, fiction can be used as a legitimate tool in social history to dispute the parochial perspectives embedded in historical thought, broadening the insights of historiographical endeavours. In terms of E.P. I'd have a look at some who criticse him for his "melodramatic imagination' - whereby he places everything into a dichotomy of 'good and evil' 'oppressed and oppressors.' This dichotomy some suggest is an oversimplification, but stems from his acceptance of the Marxist conception of history (He is one of the British Marxist Historians!)
Ultimately, fiction is fiction, and cannot be held up to the standards of biography and history. The consequences of imaginative history must be considered, such as the use of historical fiction for the entertainment of vast public audiences at the potential forfeiture of historical accuracy. Hence, an analytical rigour must be applied to the construction of history, mirroring the nature of scientific process. However, history is the analysis of human experience, which is innately multi-faceted and incomprehensible without the application of imaginative empathy. Imaginative empathy offers a depiction of human experience that is necessary and invaluable to historiographical endeavours, as suggested by the postmodernist view that history is the essence or historian’s ‘novelisation’ of the past, rather than the entirety of the past itself. Transcending the apathetic and parochial narratives of a modernist or top-down history offers the ability to engage with new perspectives and critical insights. History is a collaborative effort of science and art. Thus, the use of fiction as a historiographical tool is, to a large extent, legitimate.
Awesome awesome awesome work Angie! This essay is great - you have clearly worked really hard on it, and that shows. Your arguments are great and very historiographical, and your use of language in particular is fantastic ie. it reads really well and sophisticated! I don't have many major comments or concerns that I think need to be addressed - just go through some of my feedback within the spoiler.
But overall, well done! If you just clean up some of the stuff I mentioned I believe you should be feeling pretty confident handing this in :)
Good luck, if you need any clarification of feedback or further direction please let me know,
Susie
Hey Susie! Just wanted to say thank you so so much for your feedback, it really helped me to identify some weak points in my essay and change a couple things so that I felt confident when I submitted it yesterday! It feels so crazy to say that it's FINALLY done, but I couldn't have gotten to where I was without your help. Thank you again :DAWESOME! So glad that I could help a bit, but that confidence comes mainly from the fact that you wrote a BOMB essay to begin with :) Definitely a super crazy feeling - knowing that it has been a year now since I handed mine in feels super surreal too haha, only just realised! Congratulations Angie - your hard work has defs paid off, now you can (kinda cos like trials lol) relax ;)
Susie,Talk about an offer I can't refuse ;) My comments can be found within the spoiler :)
I will have a new appreciation for Lenin if you read this HAHHAHAHAHAHH
THANK YOU SOSOOOSOOSOOS MUCHHH!!
Talk about an offer I can't refuse ;) My comments can be found within the spoiler :)SpoilerMao Zedong: Reformer, Tyrant or Both?
The cost of ultimate power.
Throughout the decades of historical examination and analysis on numerous personalities of the past, Communist figure Mao Zedong continues to be a character of two contradictory perspectives I quite like this as an introductory sentence :). Was he a man who saw beyond the prominent ideals of democracy and capitalism that had risen during the Cold War period, or a tyrant who found pride and joy in his maniacal elimination of human lives? Hmmm not to keen on the use of rhetorical questions - this is an essay, not a speech. The Maoist period during the 20th century was the only time where terror and corruption co-existed with economical advancement, a frightening yet promising combination for the Chinese. Whilst recent historical analysis of the Chinese communist leader has showcased an increasing number of agreements "increasing number of agreements - that just sounds weird. I'd probably reword it like this "though (insert view) in recent historical analysis is becoming increasingly more accepted," something more like that. Also - why? Why has it become more accepted. I don't want you to just list the different perspectives,
what I want to see is that you can analyse and dissect why these perspectives have come to be (though the integration of various historiographical issues and concepts). that ‘he is one of the great leaders of the China… (His) new style was employed presumably to underline the twin principles of ‘democracy and reform’.’ (G.P.D, 1980) many agree to differ I get that you are trying to do the whole "agree to disagree thing" - but it's just a tad confusing, and not really consistent with how you are meant to construct an academic essay.. Arts correspondent Arifa Akbar share similar understandings with historians, including Frank Dikotter Unless these are key historians - i.e. they feature in every paragraph and their works are basically case studies, I don't really recommend including their names here, just because its a bit too much for an intro. that Mao Zedong ‘qualifies as the greatest mass murderer in world history’ (Akbar, 2010). There is no doubt one can come to this conclusion no doubt? But many people do doubt don't they? I'd shy away from making definitive statements like this in history extension. I'd probably say "the plausibility of this conclusion is evident," or something like that instead., as Mao Zedong’s campaigns including ‘The Great Leap Forward’ and the ‘Cultural Revolution’ brought approximately 30 million to 40 million deaths between 1959 to 1961 I'm gonna play devils advocate here, because you have to in history extension. Many suggest that these statistics are either a) false, or b) an oversimplification. Does that mean that they are right? No! However you can't just ignore these criticisms - this is another example of avoiding over-generalisations and definitive statements - especially if you don't provide a source to back it up!. Despite the contradictory views that surround Mao’s personality debate 'Mao's personality debate' sounds a bit off - 'The debate surrounding the actions and activities or Mao' sounds more sophisticated, historians are able to come together and recognize in the words of Historian Jonathan Spence ‘Mao’s beginnings were commonplace, his education episodic, his talents unexceptional; yet he possessed a relentless energy and a ruthless self confidence that led him to become one of the world’s most powerful rulers.’. Thus historians take into consideration what they perceiveheld more significance - the overwhelming ambition for a country’s rapid succession or the importance of the lives who uphold the country itself, to position themselves into the two sides of this controversy. This final sentence needed to be integrated earlier - this idea of contradictory perspectives forms the basis of your argument and is the historiographical element of your essay. This introduction came across as a little bit too much of just a list of perspectives. What I want to see is not what the perspectives are, but why they have developed. At present this is reading a little bit too much like 'the history of historiography' - what I need to see is just the historiography, the analysis, the thematic links, etc. etc. I see a glimmer of it here within this final sentence, but I want more!
Stuart R. Schram, an American Mao Scholar presents his understanding and perspective of Chairman Mao through the acknowledgement of his achievements and contributions to China. I think this should be the explanation of your judgement - not the judgement itself. Your introductory sentence should be more simple, and straight to the point (not necessarily shorter, but just lacking specific detail, such as historians) - perhaps: "The legacy of Chairman Mao is shaped by the way in which his achievements and contributions to China are perceived and interpreted - these interpretations a derivative not only of the historians own context and values, but further, their interpretations of __________" (idk if that last part is actually your argument, I'm just including it because I want to push the historiographical elements of your essay). Schram states that his views are shaped only by the accomplishments that advanced the contemporary nation, as ‘his virtues and vices, whether public or private, will be touched on only to the extent that they affected what he was able to achieve’ (Schram, 1994). Thus Mao’s recognition of the need for radical reform in China since his early years did not provide any grounding to the establishment of his character being sadistic and tyrannical, but rather having attained a advanced understanding of the requirements for a struggling country in the 20th century. So Schram's interpretation is essentially the destination is more important than the journey? I'd have a look at the concept of teleology (it might be completely inconsequential, but I'd take a look, because you might be able to integrate it his some how). Also just as a side note, considering this is about Mao, I hope you look at the Marxist Conception of history somewhere in this essay! His purpose and goals which were indeed, for the greater good for China as the nation faced constant suppression from Western superiority Could perhaps look at Edward Said's theory or 'Orientalism'? Again, you don't have to, just spit balling ideas :). Chairman Mao’s consideration of preserving China’s own culture and tradition whilst building on the prestige and wealth of the contemporary undeveloped country allows identification that his intentions as the leader of the developing country were pure Is this a reductionist view of Mao?. His efforts cannot be denied, as the numerous development tactics created modernization for rural areas and the foundation for China’s local industries, providing ‘a very substantial industrial and scientific base’ for the growing nation at the time This is reading a bit too much like a history essay - where is the analysis of the interpretation? Why does Schram accept this view? And I don't mean "because he looked at this evidence" - he would have come up with his hypothesis before looking at the evidence, this is just what he found to support his interpretation. What is his purpose or motive for writing history like this? Is he a marxist who seeks to validate the work of Mao? Is he a revisionist historian? etc. etc.. Furthermore, the increasing interactions with leaders of other countries opened many doors for China, securing their global market for exports to provide economic development in China. Thus Mao’s recognition of the beneficial relationships with other countries encapsulates the view that by continuing to hide and be a ‘self-contained kingdom’, such isolation would never give rise to extreme success; another accomplishment of the Chairman which reinforces his role as a reformer. Despite the attacks on Mao Zedong’s progressive deterioration of legal human rights of expression and freedoms in the Chinese society during his rule, Schram recognizes the true intentions are they definitely true?!? Or are they just what he believes are true because _____________. behind such acts. He argues that the government’s response to the rebellious acts of rising confrontation through such immoral acts were the only solution to resolve the increasing foreign aggression placed on China at that period of time. Thus historian Tim Stanley affirms the necessity of the communist leader’s suppression as ‘Mao’s greatest fear was that his country would succumb to the bureaucratic style of socialism practiced in the Soviet Union’ (Stanley, 2012) highlighting the Chairman’s prioritization of his country’s economical and political stance in the global environment. Yet whilst numerous historians turn to the ideology of Chairman Mao being the vigorous force who brought incredible destruction to his country, Schram recognizes Chairman Mao the reformer through the success of his liberating acts implemented in China during the Post War period. His understanding of the necessity to eradicate and change the archaic environment China has sunk in is affirmed in his assertion that ‘By shaking up the ancient patriarchal, stratified world for China, Mao opened the way for the emergence of new ideas and institutions’. Where is your judgement? All I am really seeing is an explanation of Schram's. What is your opinion on Schram's view - do you think he is right? wrong? Why do you think that? Dissect his argument, tear it to shreds. Look at his methodology, his ideology, his socio-philosophical background. At present this is reading too much like just a list of the different perspectives. We know there are different perspectives - this is history! As EH Carr states, "interpretation is the lifeblood if history" - thus it is not enough just to tell me what the interpretations are. I need to see your interpretation of the interpretations!
A perspective that prioritizes ethical and moral considerations can be deprived from the work of historian Jonathan D Spence, who consolidates Mao’s character in his book, The Gate of Heavenly Peace. Again, I don't want you to mention the historians in your first sentence, that just strengthens my perception that this essay is just a list of different historians interpretations. It would have been much better if you started like this: "Shared and subjective notions of ethics and morality shroud interpretations of Mao Zedong, as his potentially positive contributions are clouded by the perceived terror of his regime." With that in mind, I would LOVE a discussion upon the historical implications of letting such a subjective concept of ethics centre a historical debate! The revolutionary aspect of Mao Zedong’s implemented acts on China presents the image of a tyrannical leader who acted without remorse I don't think Mao actually has anything to do with this image - more so the historians who curated it. That isn't to say that Mao wasn't that - but it wasn't he who developed that image, and as this is a historiography essay anyway, it is better to focus on the historians contributions anyway. Mao’s determination to achieve success by decreasing the time allocated for China to rise as the dominant world power resulted in ‘him (attempting) to push in a more radical direction so as to prevent stagnation’ (Spence, 1982), resulting in the increase of deaths of civilians. Spence affirms the terrors the Chinese suffered in the 1960s, where opposition to the political agenda was controlled by the cruel physiological and physical abuse on individuals who voiced their opinions that opposed the Maoist ways. Again - this is too much history, not enough historiography. Just because a historian says this doesn't mean its historiography (in the history extension sense). Spence documents his understanding through 20th century Chinese author Ding Ling, who suffered the suppression of her political government when echoing the thoughts of the nation as she ‘called on the Fourth National’s people’s congress… to restore some levels of socialist democratic rights’. Her writings which called out the unjust and inhumane ideals behind Mao’s revolutionary plans brought ‘struggle sessions’ that consist of officers continuously implementing ‘mental strain and physical abuse’ with the intention of reeducating. Under the sole purpose of China taking a great step forward in the global community, Chairman Mao brought immense struggle to his people, ranging from betrayals to death. History essay. Katherine Reist too, agrees with Spence’s consolidation of Mao’s power as she identifies why? ‘‘Mao, removed from much of the turmoil he created, willingly paid that price. The Chinese people are still reckoning the cost.’ (Reist, 2000) suggesting Mao’s inhumane decisions to manipulate human lives like chess pieces portrays a tyrant who yields power as his sword. Furthermore, Chairman Mao under the Cultural Revolution acts not only utilized the youth of the contemporary nation to removal those upholding the bourgeoisie ideals through tyrannical means as seen numerous individualists’ humiliation through placards stating their counter-revolutionary and criminal identity History essay. Despite the Red Guards believing they performed courageous deeds for the bright future of China, Spence highlights the transition of the common enemy character from the Japanese to each other, reinforcing the perspective of Mao Zedong as a tyrant who manipulated the nation to his liking for his beliefs. Thus it is the clarification of Mao Zedong’s speech that the policies of the Cultural Revolution were aimed to ‘definitely destroy feudal, bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, liberalist, individualist, nihilist’ (McDougall, 1980) where the idea of individualist is leveled on the same platform as the feudal does one correspond Chairman Mao with the image of a brutal enforcer of his ethnics that held no moral consideration. Like before, I don't see your opinion, or your voice at all. All I see is an explanation of other peoples voices, and only on a surface sense. Why do these historians place morality and ethics above economic progress, whereas others the opposite? They both have access to the same evidence/sources (unless they don't -then that is something you can discuss!) - it is not about the history anymore when assessing their interpretation, it is about the historians.
Professor G P Deshpande no historians in first sentence presents an advanced and further understood ? this is an odd way of describing it response to Chairman Mao’s political agendas, as he counterpoints the presumed tyrannical ideologies painted on Chairman Mao with his recognition of the intellectuality behind such dehumanizing acts imposed in China during his reign. Deshpande presents the Western understanding of China’s revolutionary movement through their categorization of such action under the idea of a purge, yet presents how deeper understanding of the Maoist acts establishes the admittance of historians that such description ‘was not only inadequate by also irrelevant.’ (Deshpande, 1966.) This is better! This is historiography :) Still need to see your voice more, but this is definitely more like it - particularly the link to their Western heritage, and how that clouds their view. Again, suggest having a read of Edward Said's 'Orientalism'. His views were that the Cultural Revolution plan was not ‘the product of a whim or fantasy of ageing Mao’ or his weapon that yields to Mao’s tyrannical desires. Only through the correlation between the sixteen points program to China’s situation during that period did Deshpande present his understanding of the Maoist acts that were harnessed. This politburo resolution created and implemented by the Chairman addressed the economical and political issues China faced in the 1960s and 1970s, providing objectives that served as solutions that brought the nation a step closer to ‘Mao’s vision of tomorrow’s China.’ Deshpande himself illustrates how the sixteen points despite having ‘an air of militancy’ surrounding them, the goals of Chairman Mao all targeting one sole purpose; China’s attempt to break free from their powerless position in society and rise to new heights to take a great leap forward. Yet Deshpande’s understanding of the optimal motives behind each point was only found when considering the campaign under the conditions of contemporary context Methodology!! Great :D. The Maoist vision allowed him to understand how the program held no tactics that were new and original to revolutions but rather brought a driving force to mobilize the Chinese for the new China. In addition, Mao’s reasoning for the eradication of those who upheld the bourgeoisie and ‘the four olds’ ideologies during the revolutionary movement can be perceived through historian Dun J Li’s statement ‘let the demons and hobgoblins come out of their lairs in order to wipe them out better, and let the seeds sprout to make it more convenient to hoe them’ (Dun J. Li, 1969) bringing to focus Mao’s intentions were all contributions to China’s prosperous future. Thus by following up on Schram’s understanding of the necessity for Mao’s refurbishing revolution to eradicate the old customs of China and thus, create the groundwork for ‘national salvation and renewal’ (Schram, 1994), Deshpande presents his perspective that Mao’s creation of the Cultural Revolution was a ‘well-planned drive to mobilize the people, to make them more vigilant and tackle the enormous problems of China’ rather than a meticulous plan full of ‘the woes and failing of China’ (Pye, 1986) establishing Chairman Mao as a reformer tactician. This was a much better paragraph. It is still (mainly - I did like your discussion of methodology) an explanation of the perspective rather than an analysis, but it was still more historiography than the other paragraphs. What you need to improve on though is the integration of your own voice and opinion.
The ruthless dictatorship of Mao Zedong is drawn upon the understanding of his dismissal of lives that held significant power in their previous bourgeoisie government. This is the introduction of a history paragraph. Where is a mention of interpretations? Chinese Revolution historians Jung Chang and Jon Halliday affirm the inhumane character of the communist leader who recognized the sacrifice required in order to modernize the Chinese economy in Mao: The Unknown Story. Chang and Halliday reveal the horrific truth again - is it truth? Can one interpretation be objectively the truth? of the nation leader, a man who understood the effects of The Great Leap Forward on his people yet continued to export their food products for economical gain, reaching numbers of 4.74 million tons of grain in 1959. Mao’s falsified claims about the ‘unlimited supplies of food’ (Halliday, and Chang, 2007) to international leaders sheds light on the atrocities he committed his people to History essay. Peasants and agricultural workers suffered intense malnutrition and starvation due to Mao’s radical depletion of their food intake, as the exportation numbers were not calculated based on what could be produced, but rather what Mao required for his program to provide profit in order for China to overtake all the dominant capitalist countries in the 20th century History essay. Thus, the affirmation of Halliday and Jung that ‘Mao knew that in many places people were reduced to eating compounds of Earth. In some cases, whole villages died as a result, when people’s intestines became blocked.’ continues to expose such tyranny that existed in the 20th century. However, it brings us to questions where such sufferings effective in bringing positive change to the Chinese economy? Morality again! I really think that there should be a general discussion upon the historiographical implications of writing history based on morality as it is such a subjective concept. Historian Lucian Pye argues that despite Mao Zedong being recognized for his contribution to the wealth China is indulged in at this current time, the idea of the failures of the Maoist acts being undermined by his success is ‘not particularly convincing because China today follows very few of the early Mao’s ideologies.’ (Pye, 1986) So he invalidates history through a present day lens? Could maybe discuss the historiographical notions of hindsight being 20:20. It's very easy for historians (and anyone from the present day) to look back at historical personalities and civilisations and say that they were wrong because we know the outcome of their actions. The thing is - they DIDN'T. For example, we can look at the failures of the WW1 Generals, and say "Douglas Haig, upon looking at the failures of the battle of the Somme, I deem you an idiot and a bad man" - however, you've got to remember that Douglas Haig and all the other WW1 generals weren't used to or trained to deal with the new form of war (war of attrition) that developed during WW1, and thus had no experience dealing with the war, and no way of knowing the outcome. Obviously this is an oversimplification, but you get the point - it is very easy for us in the present to ridicule people from the past because we know their future, it is important to recognise that they did not. Hisutilitiesutilisation of the young crowd to carry out his cruel deeds were effective acts of manipulation, where Mao was able to eradicate his enemies through the student activists who support him and in so, hid behind the façade of being a nation valuing politician. History essay. Chang and Halliday asserts Chairman Mao’s fabrications of trust through his orchestration of turning the students against government figures who disagreed with Maoism, as ‘Many of these officials were on Mao’s hit list, but for now he used them to spread terror (Red Guards) - one that would soon engulf themselves’, bringing forth the reality of Mao’s understanding of the terrors he infringed on the Chinese, but regardless went forth under the reasoning of change. Similarly, Spence also affirms the mercilessness of Chairman Mao in his public announcements of encouragement of the destruction chased by the criticizing youth during the revolutionary period. Chairman Mao’s speech in February 1957 further establishes his support for the rebellion against the traditional values that plagued the country prior to his rule. Spence conveys this in the words of Harvard Professor Roderick MacFarquhar that he issued a ‘forceful warning that only through the creative struggle and daring would the Chinese be able to deepen the revolution and attain higher levels of political and social life’ (D Spence, 1982). This understanding, recognizes the truth again - is it truth? Is truth obtainable? of Mao Zedong’s understanding of the brutality of his policies, yet heeds no attention to the suffering under the belief that ‘To achieve its ultimate consolidation, it is necessary… to carry on constant and arduous socialist revolutionary struggles and socialist education on the political and ideological fronts’ (Mao, 1957).
Communist leader Mao Zedong has carried numerous different understandings of his character and his legacy over the decades. In the words of Tim Stanley, ‘there was a big gulf between the theoretical Maoism and Maoism in practice (of Mao Zedong)’. Whilst most recognize him as the tyrant who was a disaster to mankind ironically in the form of homo-sapiens himself ? I don't really get the irony here, and appears a bit too dramatic., some choose to look beyond his social and cultural impacts on the Chinese civilians and understand his policies were merely based on the understanding that China required immediate revolution in order to be where it is at this present time. In a context where Lucian Pye confirms that ‘loss of culture and of spiritual values, loss of hope and ideals; loss of time, truth and of life, loss, in short, of nearly everything that gives meaning to life’ one cannot deviate from the characterisation of Chairman Mao as a tyrannical leader who held no ethical values. However, once considering the recognition of the truth in Mao’s words ‘the struggle to consolidate the socialist system…will take a long historical period’ (Mao, 1957) historians realise that without such suffering China would not have arrived at the stage it is at today. Yet the perspective of Mao Zedong can only be developed once aligned with self valued morals and ethics and when examined at a particular period of time. Understanding of this controversial figure is only clear when one recognises the unavoidable ramifications of every action. Thus whilst Mao Zedong the tyrant, paid with his people’s lives the cost for China’s ultimate power, Mao Zedong the reformer would not have succeeded in modernising China if such sacrifice was not made.
Okay! So I'm going to be brutally honest (as I always am with history extension major works, as they are so important), as I assume that is why you wanted me to mark your response in the first place - to make this essay the best it can possibly be :) I think this essay needs quite a bit of work, and potentially in a few sections to be completely rewritten. You have a month to do this, so you should be sweet! But basically, for the most part what I read was either a) a history essay, or b) a history of historiography essay. Either you focused too much on the actual, historical narrative and detail of Chairman Mao, or you just listed interpretations. I can't recall seeing your own voice or judgement at all - I couldn't tell which interpretation you agree with, disagree with, I saw hardly any mention of ideology, methodology, purpose, context, etc. etc. That is what history extension is built upon! Here is the history extension syllabus.
Part 2: History Project
The history project provides the opportunity for students to design and conduct an investigation in an area of changing historical interpretation. Students develop and refine specific questions for investigation that add to their understanding of the key questions:
• Who are the historians?
• What are the aims and purposes of history?
• How has history been constructed and recorded over time?
• Why have approaches to history changed over time?
Apart from 'who are the historians' (which is probably the least significant of all the dot points), I haven't really seen any discussion upon these historiographical issues. These questions are what makes an essay a historiography essay and not a history essay. I need to see more analysis, more dissection. I need to see you rip into the historians, suggest their limitations, their failings, their successes - rather than just explaining the evidence they use to support their interpretation. If I wanted to know their interpretation, I'd just read their book (or a summary of their book on wikipedia). What I want is for your essay to provide me with a new experience! Unfortunately in this draft I didn't really feel it :(
Furthermore, in quite a few sections you make some very definitive statements, particularly in regards to "truth". One of the first things you go through in history extension is the notion (and really the implausibility) of objectivity and truth. Definitive statements like "he reveals the truth, etc. etc." are just not consistent with what the subject aims to convey. No interpretation is truth. If you are a relativist, you will suggest that some interpretations are more truthful, however still not the whole truth. If you are a postmodernist, you will assert that they are all equally untrue. I need to see this kinda stuff more throughout your essay.
I really think that looking at the concept of morality, and whether it can be a legitimate historiographical tool to view and judge the past would be fantastic- looking at the way in which Mao has been painted as a monster/tyrant/evil/villain. Furthermore, I think looking at the concept of race, and potentially how Western historians (many of whom would already have a negative interpretation of communism purely because of the culture they grew up in) have shaped interpretations through an 'orientalist' lens. That doesn't mean you need to present a sympathetic view of Mao Zedong, but I need more analysis of the interpretations, and why they have come to be. It isn't a matter of just "this historian assessed this evidence and came to this conclusion." There is just sooooo much more to history, and why historians construct certain narratives. But really, long story short, you just need way more analysis and links to historiographical concepts.
I really hope this hasn't discouraged you! I think you are more than capable of writing an absolutely fantastic essay bigsweetpotato2000 :), your grasp on language is for the most part fantastic (that kinda stuff can really hold back an essay, but aside from maybe a few sentences your language is very sophisticated) and you clearly have done a lot of research on Mao Zedong, much of which (even though we need to cut out a lot of the "history") will not go to waste. Now that we have identified the problems, it's going to be so much easier fixing them - and with a month to go you have more than enough time!!
Good luck, if you need any help with anything please let me know! :)
Susie
Wow Susie you are so brutal and harsh I honestly love it! Thank you so so much! I'll get to work right away!I'm glad you appreciate it! The extension major work is so important, that I'd feel like I was cheating you if I sugar coated things. It's better to hear "harsh" criticism before you hand it in rather than after! Let me know if you need help with anything - I'm sure that in less than a month, you'll have produced a fantastic essay :D
Bigsweetpotato Farm
Hello! :DHey Maraos!
I've started my major project essay and I'm planning on trying to finish a draft by Sunday. Before I go all out this weekend (staying up till 2 am like i am right now trying to finish this bloody essay that's driving me mad ;D ;D) it would be great if you could check to see if I'm going down the right track.
My synopsis is too long (should be 300 mine's like 413) so i gotta cut that. Its pretty rough at the moment however I just want to make sure I'm going down the right path.
Any advice would be great ;D
Thanks! And also thanks for the awesome ancient lecture on Tuesday it really helped :)
Hey Maraos!Thanks so much for the feedback (and for not counting towards my posts haha :D).
Happy to have a look over everything (as this is really only your synopsis and intro, I'm not going to count this as an essay marked, so I'm not going to take 25 posts off your count :) ). My comments can be found in the spoiler below!SpoilerQuestion: Critically analyse the historiographical implications of popular history interesting! A super conceptual, I like it!
Case Study: An analysis of the Spartacus legend and the impact that popular culture may have on historical scholarship and the general public’s perception of historical truths.
Synopsis:
The 21st century and late 20th century in order to cut down words, you can just say "The 21st, and late 20th centuries..."hashave seen an influx of various forms of popular historical representations. Cinema, television and more recently video games love the inclusion of video games here - people often forget them but they are becoming an ever crucial creative medium, particularly for history. have been crucial to the formation and wide dissemination of an historical consciousness of ancient history Just ancient history? I feel like all history has been widely impacted by popular history! Maybe, just to make it a tad clearer "dissemination of a historical consciousness of human history, in particular Antiquity.. These forms of popular histories have operated in tandem with, and more often than not in opposition to, the ancient historical records. For some,thecinema isthe only form oftheir only exposure to history,that they have experiencedand thus their perceptions of the past are heavily based on what ‘Hollywood’ has decided to present as historical fact. Popular representations of historical events have not only been used as a method of entertainment, but they have also been utilized as a means ofpushingpromotingthecreator’shistorical producers agenda on their audience. This hasadded even more layersfurther distorted, coveringthe historical objective truth behind a particular representation. The legend of Spartacus is one of the most prominent examples of the effects of popular history on historical scholarship and society. Great integration! During my research I discovered a large amount of popular historical representations of the Spartacus legend such as?.This discovery further developed the question of my essayUsing Spartacus as a case study, Idecidedaim to investigate the historiographical implications of popular history. This essay will focus primarily on the Spartacus legend however in-doing so I will also investigate the nature of popular history and its effects as a whole.Last two sentences are a bit repetitive, you could probably cut out some words there!To address the question the essayI will begin with a general overview of the changing interpretations of the Spartacus legend, from antiquity to the modern popular interpretations. I will then go on to explain how popular culture can be used to explore the past. I will then discuss how popular culture reduces historical issues to basic, digestible narratives and how evidence is ‘cherry picked’ to make representations seem more entertaining and thus impacting historical truths. I willfinishconclude by exploring how popular culture can cloud our understanding through fictive elements and the creator’s agenda.
The content utilized in the essay includes a wide range of sources and material including; scholarly articles from online sources, academic books, films and television including the director interviews and film historian’s and websites. As with most academic assignments traditional sources (eg: academic books, scholarly articles) must be utilized as to maintain a high quality essay. The use of film and television material including information from directors and film historians is critical for my essay, due to the nature of my question (popular history).
Essay:
The Spartacus legend isperhapsone of the most prominent examples of the impact that popular history may have on historical events. I think your introductory sentence should just focus on the impact of popular history, then in your second sentence you can introduce Spartacus! 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 interpretations of Spartacus have evolved from the Ancient perspectives who portrayed Spartacus as a criminal and bandit The continued "Spartacus" "Spartacus" "Spartacus" reads a bit clunky - might sound super simple, but refering to "Spartacus" as "him" or "they" a few times may make this sentence a little bit easier to read.. This image remained mostly unchallenged in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. However from the 1700s onwards, the depiction of Spartacus changed. To many moderns moderns? Spartacus has been an outright inspiration outright inspiration is too colloquial., as pointed out by Eckstein; “There is a compelling and tragic appeal about an armed rebellion of the utterly downtrodden, which aimed at freedom.” However, beyond historical scholarship, the Spartacus legend has been re-ignited through popular culture. As pointed out by Cornelius Conrnelius who?; “prior to Kubrick’s film and Kirk Douglas’ portrayal of the man, Spartacus was a figure known in historical-political circles but hardly prevalent as a zeitgeist in popular culture. The film altered this; as a result, Spartacus became a name that most members of the general public could identify.” Therefore through popular history the Spartacus legend has been kept alive, as further argued by Cornelius; “The historical figure enabled the creation of the fictional figure and, in return, the fictional personage of Spartacus has ensured the legacy of the historical person.” This raises the question of the impact that popular history may have on ‘historical truths’ and whether or not popular representations are slowly diminishing the quality of historical scholarship oooooo nice!. Furthermore, an interesting result of this interdependency between history and fiction is the insistent nature of the Spartacan narrative to be utilised as more than just a vehicle of entertainment. The narrative is, in most cases, connected to larger social issues related to the context in which the fictional versions of the history have been created. As argued by Carr, this raises the question a bit repetitive - you used the same phrase a few sentences ago of whether or not the historian or content ‘creator’ can ‘divorce himself from the outlook and interests of his age.’
Great work Maraos! Definitely think you're on the right track, and is looking a lot better than what you suggested you were intending to write a while back! Not much for me, just go through my comments in the spoiler and that should cover everything that I was thinking while reading your response :) Only piece of general feedback would be to be a bit more careful with language and sentence structure. It was by no means bad, however as this is your major work, you want to make sure that every word you use is well thought out and considered, and there were a few moments where I believe you could boost up the sophistication of you language a bit :)
But overall, fantastic work! It was so lovely to meet both you and Katie on Tuesday, I'm so glad you enjoyed the lecture, and felt like you got something out of it :) I had a lot of fun delivering it!
Susie
Thanks so much for the feedback (and for not counting towards my posts haha :D).No worries! And yes! Would love to see the final essay draft, whenever you're ready :)
And yeah i completely agree, it is a bit clunky atm, I'll defs improve my vocab and structure.
Thanks again! I'll be sure to post the final essay draft once I'm done
Hey! It would be amazing if you could give me some comments on my major work essay!Hey olr1999!
Thank you so much in advance :)
HellooDon't mind if I do! It definitely is very tricky, so don't lose faith if you're finding it hard - it is hard. It's history extension ;)
Mind if you can challenge my word dump again? I hope it got better in terms of Ext history essay approach wise - the words are still mumble jumble because I want to get the style of writing correct first :D
And you were right - I rewrote my whole essay but I think in the beginning I was slowly working towards writing it in that approach so it's still a bit...****. (You can fill in the gaps :P)
AND I have one week left exactly - I'm kind of screwed.
Thanks Susie! So much appreciation for you :)
Don't mind if I do! It definitely is very tricky, so don't lose faith if you're finding it hard - it is hard. It's history extension ;)
My comments can be found in bold within the spoiler :)SpoilerThroughout the decades of historical examination and analysis on numerous personalities of the past, Communist figure Mao Zedong in particular continues to be a character of two contradictory perspectives. Nice! Numerous debates surrounded the character of a man who either saw beyond the prominent ideals of democracy and capitalism that had risen during the Cold War period hmmm they were around a long time before the Cold War!, yet were counteracted with the slaughtering imagery of a tyrant who supposedly found pride and joy in his maniacal elimination of human lives. The Maoist period during the 20th century was the only time where terror and corruption co-existed with economical advancement, a frightening yet promising combination for the Chinese I like how you have emphasised this juxtaposition. The brutality suffered by the Chinese have led to countless paintings of the Chairman as a ruthless murder, these conclusions drawn from the focus on the price the civilians unwillingly paid with their lives for the nation. However, the ideology that such tyranny serving as sacrifices for the greater good in recent historical analysis is becoming increasingly more accepted, as historians have stepped away from painting the western understanding on the implications on the East I love this as a discussion, but sentence is a bit messy and confusing. Yet despite this debate surrounding the actions and activities which shape one’s understanding of Chairman Mao’s character being an inconclusive argument, historians are able to come together and recognize in the words of Historian Jonathan Spence ‘Mao’s beginnings were commonplace, his education episodic, his talents unexceptional; yet he possessed a relentless energy and a ruthless self confidence that led him to become one of the world’s most powerful rulers.’. Thus historians take into consideration what they perceive held more significance, the overwhelming ambition for a country’s rapid succession or the importance of the lives who uphold the country itself to position themselves into the two sides of this controversy. Why do they perceive certain things to be more significant though? I'm hoping that comes through in your essay. However a MUCH stronger intro already bigsweetpotato :) well done!
The legacy of Mao Zedong is shaped by the interpretation of his achievements and contributions to his country, for these understandings arise when historians’ ethical considerations prioritize what actions were implemented, rather than what the personality reflects A bit confused what you mean here?. Stuart R Schram, an American Mao Scholar states that his views are shaped only by the accomplishments that advanced the contemporary nation, as ‘his virtues and vices, whether public or private, will be touched on only to the extent that they affected what he was able to achieve’ (Schram, 1994), this teleological yisssss 8) understanding recognizing the importance for such modernization to be obtained in China link it back to the actual concept of teleological history as well - Schram's teleological perspective is shaped by his belief in progress, and moving forward. Thus Mao’s recognition of the need for radical reform in China since his early years established his attainment of an advanced understanding of the requirements for a struggling country to evolve in the 20th century, which allowed Schram to recognize Chairman Mao as a great leader who would be remembered for his efforts to improve China. By approaching Mao Zedong from Schram’s political prioritizing "political prioritizing" sounds weird point of view, one gains understanding that his purpose and goals which were indeed according to________, for the greater good for China, as the nation faced constant suppression from Western superiority they didn't face suppression from Western superiority, more so the West's belief in their superiority!. Schram asserts that Mao’s work provided ‘a very substantial industrial and scientific base’ for the growing nation at the contemporary time, which allows Schram to characterize the Chairman as a modernizing despot alongside Stalin. Despite his methods wrecking wrecking is too colloquial countlesslives of the innocentinnocent lives, his achievements such as securing their global market for economical exports allow Schram to outweigh such sacrifices. As a political scientist that prioritized the nation’s growth over its people, Schram recognizes that ‘by shaking up the ancient patriarchal, stratified world of China, Mao opened the way for the emergence of new ideas and institutions.’ Thus Schram applauds Mao’s recognition of the beneficial relationships with other countries and escape from being a ‘self-contained kingdom’, as such isolation would never give rise to extreme success; another accomplishment which allows Schram to reinforce Mao Zedong’s image as a reformer. Just a question is Schram a communist/communist sympathiser? Just because marxist ideology focuses on this idea of the collective good, which may be another reason why he presents this sympathetic view of Mao, because he believes he was doing a collective good for society, even if individuals at the time were negatively impacted.Despite the attacks on Mao Zedong’s progressive deterioration of legal human rights of expression and freedoms in the Chinese society during his rule, Schram through his understanding of Mao through Mao’s own texts only recognizes that such acts had potentially reflected the intended truth of Chairman Mao’s goals. He argues that the government’s response to the rebellious acts of rising confrontation through such immoral acts were the only solution to resolve the increasing foreign aggression placed on China at that period of time, ‘a successful modernizing despot’ whats the purpose of this quote?. Thus historian Tim Stanley affirms the necessity of the communist leader’s suppression as ‘Mao’s greatest fear was that his country would succumb to the bureaucratic style of socialism practiced in the Soviet Union’ (Stanley, 2012) highlights Schram’s belief that the Chairman’s priority was his country’s economical and political stance in the global environment. Yet whilst numerous historians turn to the ideology of Chairman Mao being the vigorous force who brought incredible destruction to his country, Schram’s recognition allows clarification of his perspective that Chairman Mao was a idealistic reformer, a thesis formed through his defined prioritization of the political agendas and the success of Mao’s liberating acts implemented in China during the Post War period. Therefore Schram’s viewpoint that Mao’s ‘merits outweighed his faults’ sheds lights on Chairman Mao’s legacy as a skillful reformer, however such a political view and Schram’s fascination with Mao Zedong’s character leads to a sense of biasness I think I said this in the last one - really not a fan of this word, particularly in this context, as it suggests that other sources aren't biased. ALL sources are biased, no matter what their perspective. and a narrow interpretation, hindering the validity of such a perception. SOOOO much better bigsweetpotato1 Like - so much better. There is way more of a focus on historiography here :D Yayayaya
Shared and subjective notions of ethic and moralityhave often been utilized toshroud interpretations of Mao Zedong, as his potentially positive contributions are clouded by the perceived terror of his regime. Historians such as Jonathan Spence present their subjective view of Chairman Mao as a tyrannical leader who acted without remorse through their interpretations of the primary recounts of suffering from the people. This verification can be denoted in Spence’s understanding that ‘him (attempting) to push in a more radical direction so as to prevent stagnation’ (Spence, 1982) becomes a confirmation of the immoral Maoist acts that brought astonishing death rates during the contemporary period. Furthermore, Spence’s detailed analysis of his extensive range of sources brings to attention his focus on the terrors suffered in 20th century China, highlighting his affirmation of the cruel suppression of the government to those opposing such implemented political agenda. His documentation of 20th century Chinese author Ding Ling showcases his ‘scrupulous attention’ to the ‘solid and sedulous readings’ his work is created upon. The explicit detail of the cruel psychological and physical abuse on intellectuals such as Ding Ling who voiced self opinionated reasoning in Spence’s book clarifies his conviction of Chairman Mao’s tyrannical leadership, as he states that she ‘called on the Fourth National’s people’s congress… to restore some levels of socialist democratic rights’.` Yet a voice that called for equality and justice was met with inhumane ideals that brought ‘struggle sessions’, a horrific suppression of individuals as Spence reinforces the Maoist acts that implemented ‘mental strain and physical abuse’ with the intention of reeducating. Dr Katherine Reist too, agrees with Spence’s careful consolidation of Mao’s power as she identifies ‘‘Mao, removed from much of the turmoil he created, willingly paid that price. The Chinese people are still reckoning the cost.’ (Reist, 2000) finding a certain extent of validity in Spence’s work through his exploration of extensive sources. Whilst the Red Guards continue to label their deeds as courageous acts benefitting the new world, Spence highlights the transition of the common enemy character from the Japanese to each other, reinforcing the perspective of Mao Zedong as a totalitarian who manipulated the nation to his liking for his beliefs. Despite Spence’s acknowledgement of the cultural, social and political ‘uniqueness’ on a balanced viewpoint, Chairman Mao’s achievements continue to be unappreciated great discussion of limitations!as his immoral ethnics undermine the humane right of freedom of speech. Finally, as Spence’s interpretation is validated in the words of Mao Zedong as the policies of the Cultural Revolution were aimed to ‘definitely destroy feudal, bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, liberalist, individualist, nihilist’ (McDougall, 1980), the idea of individualist aligning with the feudal allows correspondence of Chairman Mao with the image of a brutal enforcer and so, further establishes his tyranny. Again, so much better! However, in both paragraphs, I'd like a bit more of a discussion on the actual historians contexts, and how that impacts upon their interpretations. I think a discussion upon the subjectiveness of morality as a concept would be good as well here - is morality a valid argument, if it is inherently not objective? (though personally I don't think any history is objective lol)
However the political agendas of Mao Zedong despite the painted tyrannical ideologies expressed the intellectual understanding of the Chairman in reforming China and also provided the foundation for China’s position as a leading world power. This sentence doesn't really make sense - I don't know what you're arguing here. Professor G P Deshpande presents the Western interpretation of China’s revolutionary movement under the idea of a purge, yet retaliates how only deeper understanding of such beliefs with Mao Zedong’s policies at the contemporary time result in the admittance of historians that such description ‘was not only inadequate by also irrelevant.’ (Deshpande, 1966) Deshpande recognizes the advancing aspects of the Cultural Revolution through a Marxistthinkingconception of history, aligning such a movement with the inevitable class struggles outlined in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel’s economic and political philosophy. Great link to theory! With clarification on the irrelevance of Mao’s character as an influence on neither his plans nor a weapon that yields to Mao’s tyrannical desires, Deshpande develops his thesis that extends beyond the dogmas of the west. Through the correlation between the sixteen points program to China’s situation during that period did Deshpande establish a new accepted understanding that the politburo resolution implemented merely addressed the economical and political issues China faced in the 1960s and 1970s.This modernist understanding led to Deshpande’s appreciation of Mao’s objectives that served as solutions bringing the nation a step closer to ‘Mao’s vision of tomorrow’s China.’ Despite such policies holding ‘an air of militancy, Professor Deshpande ‘argues in favour of the Leninist notion’(Deshpande, NIL) that a party which is tight and cadre-based could bring about revolutionary leadership, seen in the eventful Cultural Revolution and so ultimately resulting in a fully developed world power. Such a unique interpretation illustrates China’s attempt to break free of their powerless position in society and take a great leap forward, allowing one to attain a more diverse perception of the Chinese communist leader. Yet Deshpande’s understanding of the optimal motives behind each point was brought to the surface when considering the campaign under the conditions of contemporary context. YES The Maoist vision allowed him to understand how the program held no tactics that were new and original to revolutions but rather brought a driving force to mobilize the Chinese for the new China. Thus, Deshpande’s perception of Mao Zedong holds incredible significance, as Professor Alka Acharya reveals how he successfully provides a vision which contrasted the characterization at the time where commentary and reports were dominated by the influential West, Professor Deshpande’s assessments were able to ‘deconstruct the events in all their complexity’, demonstrating his thorough analysis to seek the most justified deconstruction of Chairman Mao. The validation of Mao’s eradication of the bourgeoisie and ‘the four olds’ arises from Deshpande’s modernist values what are modernist values? Be specific and historian Dun J Li’s statement ‘let the demons and hobgoblins come out of their lairs in order to wipe them out better, and let the seeds sprout to make it more convenient to hoe them’ (Dun J. Li, 1969), bringing to focus that such acts was due to Mao’s realization of tradition being outdated in the new industrialized world. Thus by following up on Schram’s understanding of the necessity for Mao’s refurbishing revolution to create the groundwork for ‘national salvation and renewal’ (Schram, 1994), Deshpande’s perspective hold significant impact on developing the character of Mao Zedong. Such a detailed assessment which aligns with Edward Said’s Orientalism ideals not really orientalism ideals - Said wasn't advocating for Orientalism (in fact the opposite!), it was just his theory, so it would be better to say: "Such a detailed assessment aligns with Edward Said's theory of Orientalism... removes the influence of the Western convictions and highlights Mao Zedong’s contribution by providing a foundation for modern China today. Rather than portraying the Chinese government as manipulative tyrants, Deshpande provides a fresh interpretation of the Chinese, which becomes an acknowledgement of their noble ideals, such including sacrifices made for the greater good. Thus, Deshpande’s perception of Chairman Mao as a reformer tactician becomes a thesis that holds slightly larger relevance than his tyrannical brutality, when analyzing the Communist figure. Are there any limitations to Deshpande's analysis though? Anything to criticise? I feel like you'd been a bit too kind to him ;) But again, fantastic work.
The characterization of Mao Zedong as a ruthless dictator is found upon the interpretation of his beliefs on death bringing power and advancement as inhumane thoughts that lacked moral understanding. Chinese Revolution historians Jung Chang and Jon Halliday affirm the perceptions of a barbaric character who exploited his people for self or political gain in Mao: The Unknown Story. Chang and Halliday reveal their anti-Mao interpretations of this nation leader, their analysis detailing every action that reflected a brutal tyrant who purposely created massacres like the Cultural Revolution to catalyze the formation of his new country. The significant claims of Chairman Mao that led China to its demise has been thoroughly emphasized by Chang and Halliday, including how Communist leader Mao sold their nation’s agriculture supplies through falsified claims that they had ‘unlimited supplies of food’(Chang and Halliday, 2007) when the reality was half the population was suffering starvation. Furthermore, the atrocity of ‘Mao knew that in many places people were reduced to eating compounds of Earth. In some cases, whole villages died as a result, when people’s intestines became blocked’ reinforces their assessments of Mao and serves as insight when understanding this complex 20th century leader. Chung and Halliday’s research extended beyond exploration of numerous archives, they visited sites in China, annotated uncensored and published memoirs and interviewed thousands to provide their detailed thesis great discussion of methodologies!. In addition, Historian Lucian Pye‘s understanding of the Maoist acts being policies of success is ‘not particularly convincing because China today follows very few of the early Mao’s ideologies’ as such ideals go against his own Political Modernization Theory. This perception reinforces Chang and Halliday’s recognition that such actions undertaken by Chairman Mao mainly destroyed the Chinese rather than bring political advancement. However, such 20:20 hindsight 20:20 hindsight it too colloquial - hindsight itself isn't - but the 20:20 part is. belittles his recognition to an extent, which validates Professor Deshpande’s recognition that understanding Mao requires analysis from its context I want you to explore this historiographical implications of this a bit more :). Ten years of intensive research created 800 pages of critique on Chairman Mao’s despicability. Such detail not only provides a clear insight on the brutality but leads us to question the narrow interpretation that shapes Chang and Halliday’s interpretation. Chang and Halliday’s research basis is from an extensive range of sources both published and unpublished, leading to the questioning of its reliability of some. Despite the provided citations, there is no provided information to evaluate sources’ authenticity which often leads to apprehension of their perspective. As Jung Chang was one of the numerous who suffered the consequence of Chairman Mao’s policies in her early years the formidable anger she retains may have potentially played a large influence in channeling the direction her and Halliday’s perspective, belittling the perspectives reliability. Spence continues to affirm the tyrannical characterizations of Chairman Mao through his skillful integration of accuracy integration of accuracy? and emotion in his words, as his conveyance of the mercilessness of Mao Zedong in his encouragements of destruction evokes a sense of empathy for those who suffered and a sense of hatred for the brutal leader so further focusing on morality!. Chang and Halliday’s understanding recognizes Mao Zedong’s awareness of the brutality retained in his policies, yet heeds no attention to the suffering allowing their comprehension of an immoral leader to develop. Thus such an understanding more or less more or less is too colloquial created by heavy in-depth analysis and influenced by a personal influence, such perceptions despite aligning with other historians hold an element of biasness i'm not even sure if biasness is a word? I think it's just referred to as bias., becoming an interpretation which is considerably valid in assessing Chairman Mao’s tyrannical aspects but still carries a level of biasness, weakening the perspective.
Communist leader Mao Zedong has carried numerous different understandings of his character and his legacy over the decades. In the words of Tim Stanley, ‘there was a big gulf between the theoretical Maoism and Maoism in practice (of Mao Zedong)’ Nice!. Whilst most recognize him as the tyrant whose machinations brought death to civilians, some choose to look beyond his social and cultural impacts on the Chinese civilians and understand his policies targeted the economical and political advancement. Chang and Halliday along with Spence all aimed to present the Chinese understanding and perspective of Mao Zedong as a tyrannical leader who held no ethical values. In contrast, Schram and Deshpande look beyond the surface infiltrated by stories of the sufferings and acknowledge Mao Zedong on his ability to achieve political and economical advancement. However, Chairman Mao’s controversial character cannot be with reformer or tyrant, but both. Once considering Mao’s words ‘the struggle to consolidate the socialist system…will take a long historical period’ (Mao, 1957) realization that without such suffering China would not have arrived at its current stage arises. Yet such recognition of Mao Zedong’s character can only be developed once aligned with self valued morals and ethics and when examined at the particular period of time. Understanding of this controversial figure is only clear when one recognizes the unavoidable ramifications of every action. Thus whilst Mao Zedong the tyrant, paid with his people’s lives the cost for China’s ultimate power, Mao Zedong the reformer would not have succeeded in modernizing China if such sacrifice was not made.
Okay!!
Sosoosososososososososo so much better bigsweetpotato2000! This has significantly improved since last time, and is way more historiographical! I love how you are really delving into the limitations of these historians as well, rather than just discussing their interpretations.
My only major comments are:
1) I'd like potentially a bit more of a discussion upon some of the historiographical issues that you raised outside of Mao Zedong, so just, in a general sense, why is the context of the historian important, how is utilising morality as a historiographical tool effective/ineffective, etc. etc. Integrating historiographers that aren't necessarily focusing on Mao throughout (eg. EH Carr). That way you can show that you understand these historiographical theories, and how they apply to different historical issues.
2) Language and expression - I know you said that your word choices were a bit off, so I'm not too concerned, as you seem to be aware of this problem, but I thought I should raise it anyway. There are some sentences that don't really make sense, and that is limiting the effectiveness of your analysis.
But overall, such a massive improvement since last time! I'm super proud of you, this really is shaping up to be an excellent major work. I don't think you are "screwed" at all - this is already great, and you've still got a week to make it even better!
Great work,
Susie
Oh my goodness you have NO IDEA I was dreading your response - Was so ready to just drop and cry if I got another 'Its horrible' response (Not saying you said that but face it, the first one was a pretty ridiculous draft.)aha oh my goodness, well I'm very glad I was able to provide some reassurance! Your last response wasn't horrible by the way - 99.99% of major works will look like that tbh, but I knew you (and everyone else on AN!) could go so much further, if you were just given a little push - and I'm so glad that I did because in my opinion this is a much better essay. So good! No crying! Only celebrating, because you're almost DONEEEEEEE :D
Okay.
No crying
Okay
THANK YOU SO MUCH SUSIE YOU HAVE NO IDEA MY LIFE LOOKS SO MUCH BRIGHTER
aha oh my goodness, well I'm very glad I was able to provide some reassurance! Your last response wasn't horrible by the way - 99.99% of major works will look like that tbh, but I knew you (and everyone else on AN!) could go so much further, if you were just given a little push - and I'm so glad that I did because in my opinion this is a much better essay. So good! No crying! Only celebrating, because you're almost DONEEEEEEE :D
I honestly can't wait - Such a weight on the shoulders.Hey! no worries :) I think you answered the question well don't worry!
And I have forgotten to send in the question to my essay, could you perhaps give some insight if I answered the essay question well for my essay or should I edit it a bit to match my essay more?
Question:
Mao Zedong: Reformer, Tyrant or Both?
The cost for ultimate power.
Thanks Susie!
Bigsweetpotato Farm
Hey olr1999!
So keen to read through your essay, however you need a few more posts before I can do that! You may have missed it, but due to the increase in forum activity, so we can keep up we had to increase the post spend to 25 posts for an essay mark. You're super close, once you've reached 40 posts you'll qualify - once you've done that, nudge me and I'll get to marking your response ASAP!
Susie
Hey! It would be amazing if you could give me some comments on my major work essay!Awesome! Let's have a look then :) My comments can be found throughout the spoiler.
Thank you so much in advance :)
Hey Susie,
I've got 40 posts!
Thank youuuuuuuuuu!
Don't mind if I do! It definitely is very tricky, so don't lose faith if you're finding it hard - it is hard. It's history extension ;)
My comments can be found in bold within the spoiler :)SpoilerThroughout the decades of historical examination and analysis on numerous personalities of the past, Communist figure Mao Zedong in particular continues to be a character of two contradictory perspectives. Nice! Numerous debates surrounded the character of a man who either saw beyond the prominent ideals of democracy and capitalism that had risen during the Cold War period hmmm they were around a long time before the Cold War!, yet were counteracted with the slaughtering imagery of a tyrant who supposedly found pride and joy in his maniacal elimination of human lives. The Maoist period during the 20th century was the only time where terror and corruption co-existed with economical advancement, a frightening yet promising combination for the Chinese I like how you have emphasised this juxtaposition. The brutality suffered by the Chinese have led to countless paintings of the Chairman as a ruthless murder, these conclusions drawn from the focus on the price the civilians unwillingly paid with their lives for the nation. However, the ideology that such tyranny serving as sacrifices for the greater good in recent historical analysis is becoming increasingly more accepted, as historians have stepped away from painting the western understanding on the implications on the East I love this as a discussion, but sentence is a bit messy and confusing. Yet despite this debate surrounding the actions and activities which shape one’s understanding of Chairman Mao’s character being an inconclusive argument, historians are able to come together and recognize in the words of Historian Jonathan Spence ‘Mao’s beginnings were commonplace, his education episodic, his talents unexceptional; yet he possessed a relentless energy and a ruthless self confidence that led him to become one of the world’s most powerful rulers.’. Thus historians take into consideration what they perceive held more significance, the overwhelming ambition for a country’s rapid succession or the importance of the lives who uphold the country itself to position themselves into the two sides of this controversy. Why do they perceive certain things to be more significant though? I'm hoping that comes through in your essay. However a MUCH stronger intro already bigsweetpotato :) well done!
The legacy of Mao Zedong is shaped by the interpretation of his achievements and contributions to his country, for these understandings arise when historians’ ethical considerations prioritize what actions were implemented, rather than what the personality reflects A bit confused what you mean here?. Stuart R Schram, an American Mao Scholar states that his views are shaped only by the accomplishments that advanced the contemporary nation, as ‘his virtues and vices, whether public or private, will be touched on only to the extent that they affected what he was able to achieve’ (Schram, 1994), this teleological yisssss 8) understanding recognizing the importance for such modernization to be obtained in China link it back to the actual concept of teleological history as well - Schram's teleological perspective is shaped by his belief in progress, and moving forward. Thus Mao’s recognition of the need for radical reform in China since his early years established his attainment of an advanced understanding of the requirements for a struggling country to evolve in the 20th century, which allowed Schram to recognize Chairman Mao as a great leader who would be remembered for his efforts to improve China. By approaching Mao Zedong from Schram’s political prioritizing "political prioritizing" sounds weird point of view, one gains understanding that his purpose and goals which were indeed according to________, for the greater good for China, as the nation faced constant suppression from Western superiority they didn't face suppression from Western superiority, more so the West's belief in their superiority!. Schram asserts that Mao’s work provided ‘a very substantial industrial and scientific base’ for the growing nation at the contemporary time, which allows Schram to characterize the Chairman as a modernizing despot alongside Stalin. Despite his methods wrecking wrecking is too colloquial countlesslives of the innocentinnocent lives, his achievements such as securing their global market for economical exports allow Schram to outweigh such sacrifices. As a political scientist that prioritized the nation’s growth over its people, Schram recognizes that ‘by shaking up the ancient patriarchal, stratified world of China, Mao opened the way for the emergence of new ideas and institutions.’ Thus Schram applauds Mao’s recognition of the beneficial relationships with other countries and escape from being a ‘self-contained kingdom’, as such isolation would never give rise to extreme success; another accomplishment which allows Schram to reinforce Mao Zedong’s image as a reformer. Just a question is Schram a communist/communist sympathiser? Just because marxist ideology focuses on this idea of the collective good, which may be another reason why he presents this sympathetic view of Mao, because he believes he was doing a collective good for society, even if individuals at the time were negatively impacted.Despite the attacks on Mao Zedong’s progressive deterioration of legal human rights of expression and freedoms in the Chinese society during his rule, Schram through his understanding of Mao through Mao’s own texts only recognizes that such acts had potentially reflected the intended truth of Chairman Mao’s goals. He argues that the government’s response to the rebellious acts of rising confrontation through such immoral acts were the only solution to resolve the increasing foreign aggression placed on China at that period of time, ‘a successful modernizing despot’ whats the purpose of this quote?. Thus historian Tim Stanley affirms the necessity of the communist leader’s suppression as ‘Mao’s greatest fear was that his country would succumb to the bureaucratic style of socialism practiced in the Soviet Union’ (Stanley, 2012) highlights Schram’s belief that the Chairman’s priority was his country’s economical and political stance in the global environment. Yet whilst numerous historians turn to the ideology of Chairman Mao being the vigorous force who brought incredible destruction to his country, Schram’s recognition allows clarification of his perspective that Chairman Mao was a idealistic reformer, a thesis formed through his defined prioritization of the political agendas and the success of Mao’s liberating acts implemented in China during the Post War period. Therefore Schram’s viewpoint that Mao’s ‘merits outweighed his faults’ sheds lights on Chairman Mao’s legacy as a skillful reformer, however such a political view and Schram’s fascination with Mao Zedong’s character leads to a sense of biasness I think I said this in the last one - really not a fan of this word, particularly in this context, as it suggests that other sources aren't biased. ALL sources are biased, no matter what their perspective. and a narrow interpretation, hindering the validity of such a perception. SOOOO much better bigsweetpotato1 Like - so much better. There is way more of a focus on historiography here :D Yayayaya
Shared and subjective notions of ethic and moralityhave often been utilized toshroud interpretations of Mao Zedong, as his potentially positive contributions are clouded by the perceived terror of his regime. Historians such as Jonathan Spence present their subjective view of Chairman Mao as a tyrannical leader who acted without remorse through their interpretations of the primary recounts of suffering from the people. This verification can be denoted in Spence’s understanding that ‘him (attempting) to push in a more radical direction so as to prevent stagnation’ (Spence, 1982) becomes a confirmation of the immoral Maoist acts that brought astonishing death rates during the contemporary period. Furthermore, Spence’s detailed analysis of his extensive range of sources brings to attention his focus on the terrors suffered in 20th century China, highlighting his affirmation of the cruel suppression of the government to those opposing such implemented political agenda. His documentation of 20th century Chinese author Ding Ling showcases his ‘scrupulous attention’ to the ‘solid and sedulous readings’ his work is created upon. The explicit detail of the cruel psychological and physical abuse on intellectuals such as Ding Ling who voiced self opinionated reasoning in Spence’s book clarifies his conviction of Chairman Mao’s tyrannical leadership, as he states that she ‘called on the Fourth National’s people’s congress… to restore some levels of socialist democratic rights’.` Yet a voice that called for equality and justice was met with inhumane ideals that brought ‘struggle sessions’, a horrific suppression of individuals as Spence reinforces the Maoist acts that implemented ‘mental strain and physical abuse’ with the intention of reeducating. Dr Katherine Reist too, agrees with Spence’s careful consolidation of Mao’s power as she identifies ‘‘Mao, removed from much of the turmoil he created, willingly paid that price. The Chinese people are still reckoning the cost.’ (Reist, 2000) finding a certain extent of validity in Spence’s work through his exploration of extensive sources. Whilst the Red Guards continue to label their deeds as courageous acts benefitting the new world, Spence highlights the transition of the common enemy character from the Japanese to each other, reinforcing the perspective of Mao Zedong as a totalitarian who manipulated the nation to his liking for his beliefs. Despite Spence’s acknowledgement of the cultural, social and political ‘uniqueness’ on a balanced viewpoint, Chairman Mao’s achievements continue to be unappreciated great discussion of limitations!as his immoral ethnics undermine the humane right of freedom of speech. Finally, as Spence’s interpretation is validated in the words of Mao Zedong as the policies of the Cultural Revolution were aimed to ‘definitely destroy feudal, bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, liberalist, individualist, nihilist’ (McDougall, 1980), the idea of individualist aligning with the feudal allows correspondence of Chairman Mao with the image of a brutal enforcer and so, further establishes his tyranny. Again, so much better! However, in both paragraphs, I'd like a bit more of a discussion on the actual historians contexts, and how that impacts upon their interpretations. I think a discussion upon the subjectiveness of morality as a concept would be good as well here - is morality a valid argument, if it is inherently not objective? (though personally I don't think any history is objective lol)
However the political agendas of Mao Zedong despite the painted tyrannical ideologies expressed the intellectual understanding of the Chairman in reforming China and also provided the foundation for China’s position as a leading world power. This sentence doesn't really make sense - I don't know what you're arguing here. Professor G P Deshpande presents the Western interpretation of China’s revolutionary movement under the idea of a purge, yet retaliates how only deeper understanding of such beliefs with Mao Zedong’s policies at the contemporary time result in the admittance of historians that such description ‘was not only inadequate by also irrelevant.’ (Deshpande, 1966) Deshpande recognizes the advancing aspects of the Cultural Revolution through a Marxistthinkingconception of history, aligning such a movement with the inevitable class struggles outlined in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel’s economic and political philosophy. Great link to theory! With clarification on the irrelevance of Mao’s character as an influence on neither his plans nor a weapon that yields to Mao’s tyrannical desires, Deshpande develops his thesis that extends beyond the dogmas of the west. Through the correlation between the sixteen points program to China’s situation during that period did Deshpande establish a new accepted understanding that the politburo resolution implemented merely addressed the economical and political issues China faced in the 1960s and 1970s.This modernist understanding led to Deshpande’s appreciation of Mao’s objectives that served as solutions bringing the nation a step closer to ‘Mao’s vision of tomorrow’s China.’ Despite such policies holding ‘an air of militancy, Professor Deshpande ‘argues in favour of the Leninist notion’(Deshpande, NIL) that a party which is tight and cadre-based could bring about revolutionary leadership, seen in the eventful Cultural Revolution and so ultimately resulting in a fully developed world power. Such a unique interpretation illustrates China’s attempt to break free of their powerless position in society and take a great leap forward, allowing one to attain a more diverse perception of the Chinese communist leader. Yet Deshpande’s understanding of the optimal motives behind each point was brought to the surface when considering the campaign under the conditions of contemporary context. YES The Maoist vision allowed him to understand how the program held no tactics that were new and original to revolutions but rather brought a driving force to mobilize the Chinese for the new China. Thus, Deshpande’s perception of Mao Zedong holds incredible significance, as Professor Alka Acharya reveals how he successfully provides a vision which contrasted the characterization at the time where commentary and reports were dominated by the influential West, Professor Deshpande’s assessments were able to ‘deconstruct the events in all their complexity’, demonstrating his thorough analysis to seek the most justified deconstruction of Chairman Mao. The validation of Mao’s eradication of the bourgeoisie and ‘the four olds’ arises from Deshpande’s modernist values what are modernist values? Be specific and historian Dun J Li’s statement ‘let the demons and hobgoblins come out of their lairs in order to wipe them out better, and let the seeds sprout to make it more convenient to hoe them’ (Dun J. Li, 1969), bringing to focus that such acts was due to Mao’s realization of tradition being outdated in the new industrialized world. Thus by following up on Schram’s understanding of the necessity for Mao’s refurbishing revolution to create the groundwork for ‘national salvation and renewal’ (Schram, 1994), Deshpande’s perspective hold significant impact on developing the character of Mao Zedong. Such a detailed assessment which aligns with Edward Said’s Orientalism ideals not really orientalism ideals - Said wasn't advocating for Orientalism (in fact the opposite!), it was just his theory, so it would be better to say: "Such a detailed assessment aligns with Edward Said's theory of Orientalism... removes the influence of the Western convictions and highlights Mao Zedong’s contribution by providing a foundation for modern China today. Rather than portraying the Chinese government as manipulative tyrants, Deshpande provides a fresh interpretation of the Chinese, which becomes an acknowledgement of their noble ideals, such including sacrifices made for the greater good. Thus, Deshpande’s perception of Chairman Mao as a reformer tactician becomes a thesis that holds slightly larger relevance than his tyrannical brutality, when analyzing the Communist figure. Are there any limitations to Deshpande's analysis though? Anything to criticise? I feel like you'd been a bit too kind to him ;) But again, fantastic work.
The characterization of Mao Zedong as a ruthless dictator is found upon the interpretation of his beliefs on death bringing power and advancement as inhumane thoughts that lacked moral understanding. Chinese Revolution historians Jung Chang and Jon Halliday affirm the perceptions of a barbaric character who exploited his people for self or political gain in Mao: The Unknown Story. Chang and Halliday reveal their anti-Mao interpretations of this nation leader, their analysis detailing every action that reflected a brutal tyrant who purposely created massacres like the Cultural Revolution to catalyze the formation of his new country. The significant claims of Chairman Mao that led China to its demise has been thoroughly emphasized by Chang and Halliday, including how Communist leader Mao sold their nation’s agriculture supplies through falsified claims that they had ‘unlimited supplies of food’(Chang and Halliday, 2007) when the reality was half the population was suffering starvation. Furthermore, the atrocity of ‘Mao knew that in many places people were reduced to eating compounds of Earth. In some cases, whole villages died as a result, when people’s intestines became blocked’ reinforces their assessments of Mao and serves as insight when understanding this complex 20th century leader. Chung and Halliday’s research extended beyond exploration of numerous archives, they visited sites in China, annotated uncensored and published memoirs and interviewed thousands to provide their detailed thesis great discussion of methodologies!. In addition, Historian Lucian Pye‘s understanding of the Maoist acts being policies of success is ‘not particularly convincing because China today follows very few of the early Mao’s ideologies’ as such ideals go against his own Political Modernization Theory. This perception reinforces Chang and Halliday’s recognition that such actions undertaken by Chairman Mao mainly destroyed the Chinese rather than bring political advancement. However, such 20:20 hindsight 20:20 hindsight it too colloquial - hindsight itself isn't - but the 20:20 part is. belittles his recognition to an extent, which validates Professor Deshpande’s recognition that understanding Mao requires analysis from its context I want you to explore this historiographical implications of this a bit more :). Ten years of intensive research created 800 pages of critique on Chairman Mao’s despicability. Such detail not only provides a clear insight on the brutality but leads us to question the narrow interpretation that shapes Chang and Halliday’s interpretation. Chang and Halliday’s research basis is from an extensive range of sources both published and unpublished, leading to the questioning of its reliability of some. Despite the provided citations, there is no provided information to evaluate sources’ authenticity which often leads to apprehension of their perspective. As Jung Chang was one of the numerous who suffered the consequence of Chairman Mao’s policies in her early years the formidable anger she retains may have potentially played a large influence in channeling the direction her and Halliday’s perspective, belittling the perspectives reliability. Spence continues to affirm the tyrannical characterizations of Chairman Mao through his skillful integration of accuracy integration of accuracy? and emotion in his words, as his conveyance of the mercilessness of Mao Zedong in his encouragements of destruction evokes a sense of empathy for those who suffered and a sense of hatred for the brutal leader so further focusing on morality!. Chang and Halliday’s understanding recognizes Mao Zedong’s awareness of the brutality retained in his policies, yet heeds no attention to the suffering allowing their comprehension of an immoral leader to develop. Thus such an understanding more or less more or less is too colloquial created by heavy in-depth analysis and influenced by a personal influence, such perceptions despite aligning with other historians hold an element of biasness i'm not even sure if biasness is a word? I think it's just referred to as bias., becoming an interpretation which is considerably valid in assessing Chairman Mao’s tyrannical aspects but still carries a level of biasness, weakening the perspective.
Communist leader Mao Zedong has carried numerous different understandings of his character and his legacy over the decades. In the words of Tim Stanley, ‘there was a big gulf between the theoretical Maoism and Maoism in practice (of Mao Zedong)’ Nice!. Whilst most recognize him as the tyrant whose machinations brought death to civilians, some choose to look beyond his social and cultural impacts on the Chinese civilians and understand his policies targeted the economical and political advancement. Chang and Halliday along with Spence all aimed to present the Chinese understanding and perspective of Mao Zedong as a tyrannical leader who held no ethical values. In contrast, Schram and Deshpande look beyond the surface infiltrated by stories of the sufferings and acknowledge Mao Zedong on his ability to achieve political and economical advancement. However, Chairman Mao’s controversial character cannot be with reformer or tyrant, but both. Once considering Mao’s words ‘the struggle to consolidate the socialist system…will take a long historical period’ (Mao, 1957) realization that without such suffering China would not have arrived at its current stage arises. Yet such recognition of Mao Zedong’s character can only be developed once aligned with self valued morals and ethics and when examined at the particular period of time. Understanding of this controversial figure is only clear when one recognizes the unavoidable ramifications of every action. Thus whilst Mao Zedong the tyrant, paid with his people’s lives the cost for China’s ultimate power, Mao Zedong the reformer would not have succeeded in modernizing China if such sacrifice was not made.
Okay!!
Sosoosososososososososo so much better bigsweetpotato2000! This has significantly improved since last time, and is way more historiographical! I love how you are really delving into the limitations of these historians as well, rather than just discussing their interpretations.
My only major comments are:
1) I'd like potentially a bit more of a discussion upon some of the historiographical issues that you raised outside of Mao Zedong, so just, in a general sense, why is the context of the historian important, how is utilising morality as a historiographical tool effective/ineffective, etc. etc. Integrating historiographers that aren't necessarily focusing on Mao throughout (eg. EH Carr). That way you can show that you understand these historiographical theories, and how they apply to different historical issues.
2) Language and expression - I know you said that your word choices were a bit off, so I'm not too concerned, as you seem to be aware of this problem, but I thought I should raise it anyway. There are some sentences that don't really make sense, and that is limiting the effectiveness of your analysis.
But overall, such a massive improvement since last time! I'm super proud of you, this really is shaping up to be an excellent major work. I don't think you are "screwed" at all - this is already great, and you've still got a week to make it even better!
Great work,
Susie
No worries! I did mean it like that. I think the reason why I want you to back that up with a historian, even if it is your view, is that it is not a historiographical view, rather a historical view - it's a judgement upon Mao's intentions himself, rather than the interpretations. So your voice and interpretation needs to be on the historians, not the historical figures :) You don't have to heed my advice here if you don't want to, it was a minor point. In actuality you probably won't lose a mark, but using another historian just backs up the level of sophistication. Last year I tried to have a historian for everything, even when it was my own view (I'd change the wording a bit to still assert that it was my view, just that it was supported by other historians), so that it was clear how researched it was :)
Heya Susie!
Sorry to bother you again, but I would just like some clarification on your commentary in my first body paragraph:
one gains understanding that his purpose and goals which were indeed 'according to________' for the greater good of China blah blah blah
When you wrote 'according to ______' do you mean where did this idea come from, ie which Historian said that? Because this was suppose to be my own interpretation that was formulated - but I don't think you could have known that, my sentence was really messy AHHAHAH
Thanks!
Bigsweetpotato Farm
Awesome! Let's have a look then :) My comments can be found throughout the spoiler.SpoilerTo what extent was the Japanese Human Experimentation prior to and during World War Two Justified? Do you mean justified by history, ie. how and why have historians attempted to justify it? I hope so, because if you are looking at it more from a "was morally/ethically justified" then you'll probably be focusing too much on the history, and not the historiography.
Regardless of contemporary pacifist claims that the human experimentation of Unit 731 and associated laboratories was ‘undisputedly… unethical, outrageous and abhorrent’ (Nie 2001, p.2), those who participated in these experiments believed themselves to be and were justified, in the short term context of war. In terms of historiography, I hope you mention how contemporary individuals can view the past with knowledge of its impact, whereas those who where active at the time being studied have no actual knowledge of the impact that their actions may have in years to come. Historians are being retrospective! However, it must be considered that the relevance (‘investigated a research question that had not already been answered in previous studies and it had at least two outcomes that could plausibly occur’ (Bärnighausen 2010, p.84)) of particular experiments was absent and their actions later had a profound impact on Japanese medical ethics; it was absent. I don't really understand what you are saying here - sentence structure needs cleaning up.Therefore, in the knowledge that their experiments would yield important results, and their ultranationalist ideologies (as well as the superiority complex embedded in this) within the exceptional circumstance of war, the justification in the actions existed solely in the process of them and does not extend past the boundaries of its history. Interesting! So you are saying that the discipline and writing of history cannot justify human experimentation, as context has shifted? So it was justified according to the context of the individuals who took part, but as context and values have shifted, it is now unjustifiable according to our contemporary standards? Again, I think you can link this to the idea that historians are retrospective, but also to the subjectiveness of morality and ethics.
While the position of strict non-use of unethically obtained data may be argued, ethics merely provide a theoretical stance towards an exceptional circumstance; war. Thus, while the acts of Unit 731 ‘shall be denounced by any moral standard’ (Ishii Harumi 1982, p.13), those involved believed themselves justified in the development of ‘desperately needed social goods’ (Döring 2010, p.142). An anonymous former member of Unit 731 stated ‘there’s a possibility that this could happen again, because in war, you have to win.’ It is thus highlighted that war is a circumstance in which behaviours not regularly considered justified can be carried out with ‘less inhibition in viewing other human beings as biological resources for medical purposes’ (Döring 2010, p.144). Subjectivity of ethics and morality! So by extension, due to its subjective nature, is it a valid historical tool? I.e. should historians be writing history from a moral/ethical standing point? Michael Thomas in the ‘Ethical Lessons of the Failure to Bring the Japanese Doctors to Justice’ ‘contends that the [war] argument is weak,’ (2003, p.1) however, he fails to see this argument in an ideological way I love the discussion of limitation here! But be specific when you say "ideological way" - as Keith Jenkin's says, we are all inherently "present-minded ideological worker". Ideology is our inescapable reality, and everyone is impacted in some way, what differs is the actual ideology they follow!; ‘if the people are going to die anyway, then why not use them as experimental subjects for biological warfare research? This argument is given as a justification or excuse or rationale for human experimentation’ (2003, p.1). Thomas addresses the argument of war as an exceptional circumstance in a superficial way, war did not exist as an excuse for the human experimentation, it was believed by those involved to be a genuine and rational justification this sentence is a bit confusing, I think you need to explain it a bit more because though I think I understand, it sounds a bit contradictory - it's not an excuse but then it is a justification?; ‘We believed that the war was conducted in order to bring wealth to Japan’ (Morimura, 1983, p.109). The ideology of the war argument is seen in ‘The Bacteriological Warfare Unit and the Suicide of Two Physicians’ by Tsuneishi and Asano, which highlights the methodology under which the Japanese operated in their research into biological and chemical warfare; ‘no matter what was done, anything was permissible so long as it was ‘for the people’ or for the ‘good of society’… in everyday society, there was no such distinction on reasons for killing.’ In this way the activities that occurred were deemed acceptable and when studied through an ethical stance, it is clear that conditional use of unethically obtained data was a conscious methodology of many involved. Although Ole Döring in ‘Japan’s Wartime Medical Atrocities,’ claims that ‘it can never be argued that the ends justifies the means,’ (2010, p.142) as a pacifist, he disregards the whole-hearted ultranationalist ideology of participants and their fanatic loyalty to country and emperor (Harris 2002, p.15) in which the ‘end justifying the means’ was an inherent value. Furthermore, Döring (2010, p.142) recognises the problems in ‘measuring or otherwise positively accounting for ‘good’ or ‘right’ intentions’ and this becomes particularly problematic in the circumstance of Japan’s human experimentation, where the ‘pre-war education’ established that ‘the people of Japan [were] a superior race’ (Kojima Takeo 1996, p.246); a de facto racism ensued. Furthermore, Tsuneishi and Asano show the distinction between the moral expectations or perhaps disregard during war and everyday moral behaviours; ‘[Physicians involved in Unit 731 and similar activities] are the type of people who would be greatly troubled if they just injured another person in an automobile accident.’ War was thus clearly considered an exceptional circumstance to non-use of unethically obtained data and in this way those involved in the human experimentation had moral reasoning in their actions. Conversely, Kojima Takeo, a Captain of the Japanese Imperial Army who was involved in Unit 731, stated that ‘[they] had no sense of guilt or of doing anything wrong,’ which connotes that some participants put no consideration into whether their actions would otherwise be considered unacceptable outside of war. An anonymous hygiene specialist at the Unit 731 facility referred to incidents of water torture and stated “that’s war” to a friend who had seen it occur. Clearly, war was believed to be an inherently atrocious occurrence and that these acts were accepted as a necessary part of it. It is thus evident that in some cases, conscious consideration of ethical issues that may have arisen from the human experimentation, did not occur and thus that practical circumstances were difficult to compare with a theoretical approach of ethics. Awesome! Really really interesting, philosophical stuff, I really like it. I potentially would like a bit more of a discussion of this on a historiographical sense though - so linking this more explicitly back to concepts such as truth, objectivity, subjectivity, etc., and maybe incorporating some historiographers works, that though they may not directly relate to your topic of human experimentation, the ideas they present CAN link if you yourself make the connection (thus asserting that you understand their argument, and its universal nature (if applicable).
Ethics are moral principles which govern an individual’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity, however they are dependent upon the individual’s contexts fantastic judgement! However I'd go even further - the we interpret the morals of others is at the same time contextual (hopefully you go into that :) ). Ishii Shiro, the director of Unit 731 and associated laboratories, carried little notion of commonly accepted ethical boundaries in relation to the use of human experimentation in biological and chemical warfare within the context of war. However a Western perspective regards the experiments as ‘so inhumane that they were in breach even of the rules of war’ (Thomas 2003, p.1). Western perspective - do you think that this in anyway links to some of the ideals of the Enlightenment? Also, do you think you could link this to concepts like 'Orientalism' for example? In spite of this, Ishii was nevertheless aware of the scruples attached to these actions outside of war; ‘we were told to take the secret to the grave with us’ (Shinohara 1996, p.227). In this way, the society of emperorism in Japan, one where a citizen’s ‘absolute responsibility above the army and government was to the emperor’ (Captain of Japanese Imperial Army, Kojima Takeo), as well as the ultranationalism that arose from this, allowed these behaviours otherwise regarded as unethical to be deemed suitable and necessary. Outside of war, the ‘danger of discovery’ (Harris 2002, p.31) impacted the location of the facilities. Subsequently, the knowledge of those involved of the immorality of their actions is evident. In terms of the context of war, as a result of Ishii’s ultranationalist values, he was ‘fanatically loyal to country and emperor’ (Harris 2002, p.15) while simultaneously ‘burning with ambition to make a name for himself within the medical profession’ (Harris 2002, p.16). Moreover, due to his extreme intelligence, Ishii had a ‘fever for research,’ however ‘[this] forward drive ran roughshod over protocol’ (Gold 1996, p. 23). Hence, the way in which Ishii applied himself arose from his personal ‘duty to sacrifice some for the benefit of the many’ (Döring 2010, p. 143) Great, but this is a bit too "history" and not enough "historiography". What I am more concerned about is the way in which Ishii's actions have been interpreted (and maybe justified) by others, more so than how he justified it to himself.. In this way, the events that took place in Unit 731 and associated laboratories, during the war, can be considered justified as those involved based their actions on their personal ethical values in a time of war but what about the historian's ethical values, when interpreting these actions?. Conversely, it can be said that Ishii’s exposure to the illegality of biological and chemical warfare reflects a disregard for ethical principles, however through a report by Second Class (First Lieutenant) Physician Harada on the 1925 Geneva Disarmament Convention, ‘which outlawed, at least on paper both chemical and biological warfare’ (Harris 2002, p.19), Ishii noted that ‘if something were bad enough to be outlawed, then it must certainly be effective’ (Gold 1996, p.24). In this way, the Geneva Convention was a source of his motivation rather than one of discouragement. Through this, it is clear that Ishii’s intelligence and education gave him a notion of practicality over procedure; once again his personal morals came into play. Still too much history for me. Furthermore, as part of Japanese belief, ‘the emperor was a living deity’ (Kojima Takeo 1996, p.245) and possessed the divine right to rule an area of Asia known as the Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere; by governing the people of this area, he would ‘bring them happiness’ (Kojima Takeo 1996, p.246). In this way it is clear that contemporary moral principles that influence the way we act have little significance in this ultranationalist society, where loyalty and thus devotion laid with the Emperor; the people were ‘set upon serving [their] country’ (Harris 2002 p.15) Better - now we're getting more into the historiography, but its historiography that should be dominant, so I still think you need way more of it, and to cut down on some of the history from before.. Yet Ishii’s education did not include a course in medical ethics, thus it can be said that he ‘never concerned himself with medical or other forms of ethics’ (Harris 2002, p.16) and therefore that his ignorance provides him with justification. As stated in ‘The Bacteriological Warfare Unit and the Suicide of Two Physicians’ by Tsuneishi and Asano, however, ‘many physicians of conscience and thinking were a part of ‘Unit 731’ and similar activities’. In this way, the moral principles of Ishii are regarded, despite that these principles were different to those outside of Japan. It is clear that Ishii’s values reflected a concern for practicality; the activities of Unit 731 and associated laboratories were undertaken for the benefit of the many. Clearly, the ideological underpinnings of their actions are significant in providing them with justification. Overall, though this paragraph is very interesting, constructed beautifully and clearly well researched - it's history, not historiography. You need to be emphasising how and why people have interpreted the actions of Ishii, and whether they can justify his actions based upon their subjective concept, rather than how he himself was able to justify it. You touch on what I think could become a great argument - "In this way it is clear that contemporary moral principles that influence the way we act have little significance in this ultranationalist society, where loyalty and thus devotion laid with the Emperor; the people were ‘set upon serving [their] country’ (Harris 2002 p.15)". I think this should be expanded upon, and make up the bulk of your paragraph - how can we attempt to justify the past based upon the morality of the present? Link to the concept of hindsight, and being retrospective, etc. etc. That will make for a more "history extension" response.
While the exceptional circumstance of war functioned as a justification in the process of the Japanese human experimentation, the establishment of biological and chemical warfare research, its continuation throughout the war and the successful suppression of its occurrence in history was not possible without the condoning by external platforms of authority. Jing- Bao Nie, of the University of Otago, states that those who engaged in the human experimentation ‘represented the evil force universally existing among human beings,’ (Nie 2001, p. 1) however, ‘many members of Japan’s scientific establishment, along with virtually every military leader of note and members of the imperial family, either participated in chemical or biological warfare research, or supported these projects with men, money and material’ (Harris 2002, pg. 14), and certainly these groups can be held equally accountable for the ‘most unethical, outrageous and abhorrent’ (Nie 2001, p.2) events. But what about the historians? It would be interesting to see a discussion upon their own culability. In the testimony of Hiyama, a member of Unit 731, the effect of the attitudes and behaviours of people and other countries on their actions is clear; it allowed them to be justified in participating, “there is nothing shameful in what I did at Unit 731… The Soviet Union was also conducting research into germ weapons… I was doing this for Japan, and I am not ashamed at all of what I did.” However, while Takashi Tsuchiya states that ‘the loss of common sense of humanity among researchers when the experimentation was performed secretly’ allowed the ‘mass murder’ (Nie 2001, p.2) to occur, it is evident through Hiyama’s testimony that even many years after the Second World War, many involved ‘did not have even the slightest sense of guilt’ (Nihon Jido 1983, p.109) even when the secrets were known to many. On an international scale, Japan was condoned for committing war crimes, by not being brought to trial. The USA came to an agreement with Japan; ‘in return for exclusive access to the experimental data, members of the Unit, from Ishii down, were granted immunity from prosecution.’ (MacDonald 2010, p.168) Hence, while it may be argued that the 1925 Geneva Disarmament Convention elucidated the illegality of their research, it was undermined by the actions of the United States has this shaped the way history has been written about the subject? Do historians attempt to cover up this aspect of history as well?. Thus, while ‘America expeditiously gained twenty years’ worth of information at minimal financial cost’ (MacDonald 2010, p.168), certainly their actions further justified Japan, encouraging their continued lack of remorse while simultaneously committing an equally atrocious act to the human experimentation itself, from a contemporary Western perspective Is this a suppressed feature of their national history? Ie. it's not mentioned in school textbooks, etc.? Because that would have some interesting historiographical implications, in that they essentially would be rewriting the narrative of their history, through purposeful omission.. Furthermore, the 1925 Geneva Disarmament Convention ‘did not arouse much interest’ (Harris 2002, p.19) in Japan, and through this, yielded little authority over their actions. Despite that this did not impact their judgment, it can be said that Japanese ideologies originating from Confucianism provide a reason as to why the experiments were unethical. In ‘Ethical Lessons of the Failure to Bring the Japanese Doctors to Justice,’ Michael Thomas refers to the Confucian values of ‘yi nai renshu’ (medicine as an art of humanity). By referring to these values as ‘fundamental Japanese Principles,’ (2003, p. 1) Thomas references Tsuchiya’s argument of these events as revealing an evil inherent to the human condition. However, through a testimony by Unit 731 member, Hoshi, it is clear that the militarisation of the practice of medicine in the context of war, as well as the condoning of the actions by his superiors, prevailed over these values; ‘Although I didn’t regard the Chinese as human beings, I hated cutting them up like this. However, I could not disobey the order.’ (Hoshi 2002, p.112) Evidently, these Confucian values functioned only in the normal social context. Thus, these events were very much allowed to occur due to the condoning on several levels, providing those involved with justification to carry them out. Again, not enough historiography was in this essay. Remember that the focus of this course is on historiography - how and why history is interpreted in different ways. Throughout your essay, I think you are focusing too much on the attitudes of the time in which you are studying, rather than focusing on the attitudes of people studying and writing the history years later (which is the focus of the course).
Despite that Unit 731’s human experimentation was justified as a function of the contexts, the significance of these events in shaping Japan’s later medical ethics plays an important role in questioning whether or not they were wholly justified. Furthermore, the relevance of the research and the extent to which the experiments aided in the Japanese war effort, while somewhat present, are undermined not only by their later ethical impact, but also by the possibility that the success of the results may have been overstated by Ishii and by the existing ‘ethical’ alternatives to the human experimentation in testing their hypotheses. In ‘Japan’s Wartime Medical Atrocities’, Till Bärnighausen, Assistant Professor of Global Health at the Harvard School of Public Health, addresses the relevance of experiments (‘i.e., it investigated a research question that had not already been answered in previous studies and it had at least two outcomes that could plausibly occur’ (Bärnighausen 2010, p. 84). While it is clear that some experiments, such as those testing hypotheses on tuberculosis, the effects of mustard gas and the treatment of frostbite, were relevant and did not have ethical alternatives in order to prove the hypotheses being investigated, ‘many of the human experiments conducted by Unit 731 were not relevant because they investigated research hypotheses that had either already been proven to be true or were highly implausible’ (Bärnighausen 2010, p. 84). Thus, it is evident that many experiments conducted offered no contribution to scientific knowledge, or to the Japanese war effort, and thus that the Japanese scientists were insufficiently justified to carry them out. Furthermore, ‘the issue of human experimentation has become a taboo you could look at this historiographically - is it a historical taboo, in that it is omitted from national history? Are people let likely to discuss it because of its nature as a taboo, thus rewriting the past? Are people less likely to consider the topic critically, due to its taboo and controversial nature? in [the] Japanese Medical Profession after World War II’ (Tsuchiya 2003, p.1) and ‘[this is probably] the reason why [a] human experimentation framework is absent in Japan’ (Tsuchiya 2003, p.1). Subsequently, throughout the 1950s instances of human experimentation without informed consent (permission granted in full knowledge of the possible consequences,) took place, in which lobotomies were performed on psychiatric patients, and disease causing agents were injected into infants and psychiatric patients without the knowledge of family members. Although the Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics has provided a platform in which the human experimentation can be learnt from and ethical issues can be addressed, certainly the hostility surrounding human experimentation in Japan due to the events of World War II has had a profound effect on Japanese scientists. In this way, the scientific idea of progression and thought for future generations has been disregarded and consequently, the justification of the scientists in their human experiments is undermined.
Certainly, the Japanese scientists acted under the idea that the end justifies the means. In hindsight, the events that took place were atrocious, and it is difficult to comprehend how they may have been able to perform an act so cruel, one which seemed to completely disregard individual dignity. However, it is clear through testimonies of many involved that their ultranationalist ideologies, within the context of war and the condoning by those around them, that they very much believed themselves to be justified and possessed no notion of wrong-doing. It seems that those who performed human experiments in order to contribute to the war effort, were justified, but merely in the short term of the war and within the idea that these experiments would yield vital results.
Okay!! So my thoughts.
Positives - You've very clearly done A LOT of research, and that has allowed you to formulate some very sophisticated arguments (particularly at the beginning of your essay). Furthermore, your grasp of language and structure is for the most part excellent - which further boosts the sophistication of your response (you won't believe how important language is to many markers when it comes to this subject - I've read some previously successful essays, and they are almost difficult to understand because they are just so academic, like university thesis'!).
However, there is one, kinda major negative for me, that I do think needs to be addressed. Though your arguments were fantastic, for the most part they were focused on the history, and not the historiography of Japanese Human Experimentation. You were looking too closely at how individuals from the time interpreted their actions, and not enough on how contemporary historians/historical producers interpret their actions today! You kept on mentioning historiographical issues (eg. morality, context, etc.), but rather than linking them to the historians, you linked them to the historical personalities instead. Though you include a lot of historiography (ie. quotes), your actual essay for the most part isn't historiography. You did this better at the beginning of your response (particularly in your first paragraph), where you dissected the methodologies of historians, and assessed the limitations of their analysis. This needs to be more consistently done throughout the entirety of your essay.
But overall, good work! I hope this didn't come across as too harsh - I definitely think this is a great essay (and has the potential to be fantastic!), now we just need to work on really emphasising the historiographical element a lot more. I suggest having a look at the syllabus, and seeing if any of the historiographical issues they mention are relevant to your case study, and can be discussed!
Hope this helps, if you have any questions about the feedback let me know!
Susie
No worries! I did mean it like that. I think the reason why I want you to back that up with a historian, even if it is your view, is that it is not a historiographical view, rather a historical view - it's a judgement upon Mao's intentions himself, rather than the interpretations. So your voice and interpretation needs to be on the historians, not the historical figures :) You don't have to heed my advice here if you don't want to, it was a minor point. In actuality you probably won't lose a mark, but using another historian just backs up the level of sophistication. Last year I tried to have a historian for everything, even when it was my own view (I'd change the wording a bit to still assert that it was my view, just that it was supported by other historians), so that it was clear how researched it was :)
Susie
Hey, thanks a lot if you get round to reading this, I was wondering if you'd be able to mark it. Thanks!Hey mitchello! Happy to read your major work, however you're going to have to increase your post count a bit first :) 25 posts = one essay marked during the Trial period, just so that we can keep up. Once you've got 25 posts, give me a nudge and I'll look over your essay as soon as I can :)
Note - In the synopsis, it required us to talk about the 'development of the precise research question', I'm not sure if I've approached it quite correctly, but the rest is quite reflective of a synopsis.
Sure thing, sorry. I didn't read the guidelines for essay marking, I'll try get to 25 without wasting space on the forum - will be back soon hopefullyNo worries! Super easy mistake to make :)
Hey Susie,AMAZING!! So great to hear damecj :) I may have been able to help a bit, but that was all you! You should be really proud - this is a really hard project, and you absolutely smashed it :D
Just writing to say we got our extension history projects back today and I got 24/25!! Couldn't have done it without your help, thank you very much