History Extension: Discussion, Questions & Potential Solutions

[Joseph41]

Post all exam discussion and sample solutions for History Extension here!

[owidjaja]

I have no clue how I feel about the paper.

With Section 1, the question threw me off-guard because from reading the first line, it sounded like the source was gonna go through the purpose of history. But then I read the question and realised they were asking for how history has been constructed and recorded. At first I agreed with the source but then my judgement changed to partially agreeing with the source. I talked about how the democratisation of history has allowed historians to construct history by including the traditionally voiceless and how the use of technology to record history has allowed the general public to find digitised sources. I talked about the use of oral history by artist Art Spiegelmann, the use of technology and digitised sources by the Australian War Memorial and the State Library, and talked about Windschuttle's rejection of oral tradition as a legitimate source and used the source's view on using cultural artefacts seriously.

Then I disagreed with the source when Marwick said that historical works are different from literary works and talked about postmodernism. I talked about linguistic turn and Hayden White's argument that historical works are literary texts and how it can be categorised into different genres. Then I went on to talk about the construction of history through the use of historical imagination and counterfactualism and how it's important to fill in the gaps and understand the significance of historical events. I quoted R.G Collingwood here.

I also disagreed with the source when Marwick said that history should exclude political views and said that historians are motivated by political views to construct history. I threw Bede in here and talked about how his work is considered propaganda because he wrote it during the time Britain was converting to Christianity. I also talked about how history is constructed to solidify national identity and threw in Anzackery due to the jingoist nature of the Anzac Legend, and how the construction of memorials for John Monash promotes national identity. I also quoted Margaret MacMillan here.

As for Section 2, I found it ok and I was able to relate it to Churchill. I'm not sure if I addressed the part in the question 'historians' approaches to the case study.' I used the structure of context, purpose and methodology and talked about how these three factors result in 'a patchwork of ideas and viewpoints.' In my context paragraph, I contrasted Gilbert and Trukhanovsky and talked about how their different contexts lead to different ideas 'woven over time' because of their different approaches to Churchill. I also threw in EH Carr in the paragraph to expand on the idea of context impacting historians. In my purpose paragraph, I talked about the two films 'The Darkest Hour' and 'Churchill' and how despite their similar aims in entertaining and achieving kudos, the two films offer different versions of Churchill. In my methodology paragraph, I talked about how Gilbert's use of primary sources and ability to access a plethora of evidence allows him to offer his viewpoint. I also included how his work lacked in assessment since he believed it was the audience's job to do so and threw in linguistic turn here. I also talked about the Churchill War Rooms and their use of primary sources and how they use technology so the audience can explore the different sides of debates surrounding Churchill and linked it back to linguistic turn.

So overall, I'm not sure how to feel about the paper. It was ok but whether I answered the question or not, I'm not sure.

[Lollzza]

I basically called Section 1's author out the whole paper and said he was being pompous to assume he knewthe "aim of history"
my paras were based on the construction of history needing both creative or imaginative flair and empiricist methods since is history really history if we don't ever glance at it?
then about basically history already is politicised and that being apolitical is essentially still writing history from a political standpoint. identity politics consume our modern world
my last one was actually about the purpose of history since the man made some pretty bold claims but didn't really define history imo apart from some buzzwords and critcisms about how *other* schools of thought talk about history so him saying he knew the aim of the process of writing history vs literature made him into a "moral giant"

Section II was alright. Elizabeth is all about gender and identity and people have disagreed quite a bit when talking about her (lookin at you Elton) so it was easy to mold to the question.

Dunno how well it went but que sera sera it's all over now. If nothing else then at least i had fun with the course.

[sudodds]

Hey all!

Just wanted to pop by and say a MASSIVE CONGRATULATIONS!!! You're finished, it's over, finto!! You just completed one of the hardest HSC exams they offer - History Extension is university level stuff I'm sure you all smashed it, don't worry too much if you're not feeling super happy with your responses, that's a VERY normal response to a history extension paper! I came out feeling really rotten, but it was all totally fine in the end!

Good luck to anyone completing Modern on Monday, and for the rest of your exams <3

Susie