Monday, September 23, 2013

Homework Assignment Week of 9/23/13


1.  Please click the link and find your name within the document next to a quote.

2.  Complete the following in your post on the blog:

           ~Drop down menu (anonymous): 1st name on.
           ~Interpret the quote and put it in your own words.
           ~Discuss how this quote is applicable to content in History and/or Literature.
           ~What are the TOKish implications?  Develop a knowledge question.
           ~Reply to a classmate over the weekend.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

48 comments:

  1. George
    To me the quote interprets to that History does not teach much about revolution, but it teaches more compared to the social-sciences. It discusses that failing political systems always precedes revolutions and that the failing central government gives doubts to the citizens, which eventually leads to a revolution. In my own words that quote would be "History may not teach us as much as the natural sciences, but more than the social sciences. Prior the beginning of all revolutions there is always going to be something wrong with the government, and the problems of the central government will give doubts to the citizens, which makes them question the government and possibly start a revolution. This quote is applicable to in history, as most revolutions we learned about last year started due to a bad government, including the American revolutionary war. It started because Britain was controlling the United States too strict, so we question them, and eventually started a revolution to break out of it. Same with Cuba, but this time there were lots of foreign investments in Cuba, and the government didn't listen to what the people wanted, thus a revolution was started by Castro against Batista. The TOKish implications are with the ways of knowing, specifically perception. There are various perceptions during a revolution and they all vary due to different experiences and information. People can receive various information from different sources, which could could give them a negative or positive perception of the government. Their perception of the government could either be a hindrance to the government, and get in their way, or be helpful to the government in preventing a revolution or protecting the government. To what extent does insider information (military information) affect the decision of the government in vital situations (like joining wars or an invasion)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. George, are revolutions a necessity? in History? in Natural Sciences? in Social Sciences?

      Delete
  2. My comment is: Everyone falsifies history even if it is only his own personal history. Sometimes this falsification is deliberate, sometimes unconscious; but always the past is altered suit the needs of the present. The best we can say of any account is not that it is real truth at last, but that this is how the story appears now. I think this quote is terse. It is stating, that our memories, which are suppose to be representation of the past, are interpreted and remembered differently, according to our needs of the present. For example, if I gave someone a dollar, and later on when I need a dollar, I wouldn't recall giving that person a dollar but BORROWING the dollar because that's what fits my need at that time. Memories ARE NOT reliable, because they are constantly being altered and adjusted as a necessity to the present. This quote, is not only for our own history, but for the history in general. As like in our own history, history in general tends to do the same thing. Historians have their own biases, therefore they interpret different situations and different sources differently. As they do that, they manipulate history to form their own arguments with justified facts. History can be manipulated to support different interpretations. With this being said, we should take a closer look at history. Think about the way the data is presented, the words being used. What are the author's sources that prove this point, why is he arguing this? What are other arguments against this viewpoint? Can we trust history? To what extent is history just a lie? This are the things we should be thinking about as we gain knowledge while reading historical documents. Even though, history is already in the pass, one would think it's easier to understand. It is not. Always view things objectively and examine all viewpoints, especially in history. Our own and the general one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This one is mine: Blanca V.

      Delete
    2. Is History another form of literature Blanca?

      Delete
  3. Paola 3A
    The quote "Faithfulness to the truth far more than a research however, patient and scrupulous into special facts. Such facts may be detailed with the most minute exactness, and yet the narrative, taken as a whole, may be unmeaning or untrue. The narrator must seek to imbue himself with the life and spirit of the time. He must study events in their bearings near and remote; in the character, habits, and manners of those who took part in them. He must himself be, as it were, a sharer or a spectator of the action he describes" means that one can never understand history or literature just simply reading the text. Its "facts" but understanding why they did it and how is it possible that those know about it came to be as it is. In other words, one must not build up the knowledge in order to just recognize how it is but to also understand it, as the history or story explains, since it is important to attempt in being an empathetic person and always to recognize oneself biases. Since just having one side of a picture will not make you understand certain things clearly. Being bias, one basically have a impartial truth and could be too into a personal account. Then that one person would be unfair and judging a certain thing if they are biased against it. One's own biases removes the excess use of these types of biases or stereotypes which then misleads the "facts" for everyone else who may not be able to have the option to choose what side they want to be on when having a dispute over a certain area of history. And doing so, reminds me about the historians that had rare thesis about a certain battle or how historians have accused others for something that is possible for it not to be true. One could be able to express themselves by being able to show both sides of a certain claim and counter claims for it. "Facts" are better as it found by the majority to clarify what is "facts" if they were to be terse and not a bunch of irrelevant information when it comes to History and Literature. Once one is position to almost tell a story in a flow that does not stop with hesitant or doubtful minds.

    History and Literature allows you to go step by step on how and why certain things happen if one is to read the information that provides it to them. In history, it would've been how the past could be why the reappear again currently once more. In addition, in Literature is being able to understand what the text is telling you by getting information of the author, or simply by looking at the setting of the book. Then to consider when things were published and where if that is provided. In literature or history if one does not consider the origins of the text then the book would be meaningless and also will not be helped but to leave them there. In books or in films or even a painting, they are usually based on the author and what they know at the time. Then the author chooses to be in the fictional categories or non-fictional category.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paola 3A -part 2-
    An author ponder about the genre because they will want to use as much information or knowledge that one could provide just to be able to have a connection with the targeted audiences and within their text. Doing so, it assists the reader to know why the story appears to be as they are. Non fictional, tends towards more facts about the place, it may present a more personal note but that's because that time that one person must had only saw one side of the story but not in the other side which it might be difficult to discuss a side that one haves no experience of. Furthering on, historians are fascinated because not only do find primary sources in order to get as much information about a certain topic that one must get into in order to discuss their POV which might influence the answers to all else, but if one to be obdurate and refuse to take in the other side then they would be an unfair type of person. In TOK, what is consider the most important is how history deals with historiography, since we cannot go back into the past and be able to see it all in motion with our eyes but just simply doing the research and finding sources where one would get one side the most because it is the most mention theory and such. Another that is a factor is that history must be something in the past, can be presented in theater or in novels, or in art and music. TOK implies that the truth must be present and proven to have history facts when they talk about the history in its area of knowledge. K.Q: To what extent does "facts" become the "truth" in history?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jose

    This quote, based on my own interpretation of it, is trying to attack history and the idea that it should be learned. The mind behind this quote does not see history as being important to anyone, especially himself/herself. In my own words, the quote is basically saying “It’s a struggle to have to learn history. What do old conflicts have to do with me? Why learn something that reflects the inequalities in humanity?” This quote is applicable to the way history curriculums may be divided up. We probably wouldn’t question why wars such as the Civil War were fought or why they matter to us today, but for some of the more ‘trivial’ topics in curriculums of foreign focus, one may probably question what difference it makes whether or not we are familiar with it. In reality, history is a huge web of events that shape and affect us today. One example of how people tend to ‘trivialize’ history was last year; I was considering taking women studies to learn more about the history of feminism, but to some friends, especially male friends, they questioned what relevance that had to do with everything else I was learning. In terms of TOKish implications, I can deduce that people are quick to judge and question things that don’t appear pertinent to their lives at the moment. I can also deduce that generally, the value of information is not universal.

    Knowledge question: To what extent does gender affects one’s perception of the value of historical events?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Values are relative. That is why we often times cannot come to a consensus. Are there universal values?

      Delete
  6. Kolleen
    "Every past is worth condemning."
    There are multiple ways to define the word "condemn" but in this context I believe it means to judge or to pronounce to be guilty. Therefore I would interpret this quote as every past occurrence can be judge. If I were to put this quote in my own words I would say, "Every past event can be judged." This quote is applicable in history because it speaks about the past. Also, people have different perspectives on what happens in past events. Because people have different sense perceptions about past events, we can say history "rewrites" itself. When a new set of eyes view a situation, that person may have new ideas that influence how others see the same event. Although, everyone can see the same event, they can view it in different ways. At first I thought that many events such as war and murder were crimes were able to be condemned but then I reread and noticed that the quote said "every past." After rereading I thought how could something good like having a wedding, falling love, or walking in the park be judged or pronounced guilty? Then I remembered that judgement isn't always bad. Also, some events could cause bad events. For example, parents spoiling a child could be viewed as a bad thing in the long-run because it could cause that child to be bratty. Someone may judge the parents for spoiling their child while others may think of it as a good thing to give children many of the things they want. The past can have negative and positive. A TOKish implication that I found in this quote is that an area of knowledge that was used was history and two ways of knowing that were evident were sense perception and emotion. The quote relates to sense perception it supports the fact that history is continually rewriting itself. The quote relates to emotion because the word "condemnation" is used which represents the idea that history can be written to condemn practices of a specific time. One knowledge issue that I developed by examining this quote is "How can we prove that some all events are worthy of being condemned?" And, "To what extent are some actions guiltier than others?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sagen
      I totally agree with your statement about history having an influence and can get "rewritten" based on your perception of it. To add on to that, I think one's racial background can impact how one perceives history. For example, a Jew might think Hitler was an evil dictator while a Nazi may believe that his actions during the Holocaust were necessary.

      Delete
    2. I agree with your interpretation specially when you said that ALL events are "guilty" of something whether it's good or bad. Of course, that is interpreted subjectively. Just adding on to what you said, every action will cause further actions. So, whether the event is good or the event is bad, it will lead to something, good or bad. Therefore it will be guilty of something. If that makes sense.
      Blanca V.

      Delete
    3. Are there any historical actions that cannot be condemned? What were the benefits to Hitler's reign for Germany? Did the outcomes outweigh the losses? Besides morals, what other values can we use to evaluate his reign?

      Delete
  7. Odunayo-

    To me, the quote is saying that the reason why countries have revolutions from their "mother country" is so that they can do whatever they want without giving to the mother land. An example of this is the American Revolution. Colonists fought against Great Britain because they desired "freedom". Even though we got this freedom from Britain, now, we still tax ourselves and place tariffs the way Britain did. The only difference is that we now don’t have to give a portion of this to the mother country. The reason behind this is that people don’t feel independent while under other people’s rules. When they try to govern themselves, they truly realize whether the rules were good or not. People don't feel satisfied until they experience independence for themselves. How can our desire for independence hinder our growth?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. George

      After looking at Odunayo's quote, it appears to me that when people gain independence from the old government or other government, they form a new government, but still do keep some of the past government. I agree with Odunayo and his statement that we tried to get away from Great Britain because they were controlling us with the use of tariffs and taxes, but we still do that to ourselves today. In response to his knowledge issue, I think that independence hinders our growth, as since we are usually going to go into uncharted territory we need to learn and understand new things. The time we take to learn new things hinders our growth, and we will need time to test new ideas and methods to discover whether they are successful or not. Like after most revolutions, they are independent, but now they don't know what to do anymore. Most of the revolutionists don't know how to run a government, so their desire for independence hindered their growth, as now they need to learn how to set up and run a government.

      Delete
    2. The formation of the USA was indeed an experiment. Yes, there have been some sacrifices, but were they worth it?

      Delete
  8. Hyon
    Future years will never know the seething hell and the black infernal background, the countless minor scenes and interiors of the secession war; and it is best they should not. The real war will never get in the books. -Walt Whitman
    I believe this quote is saying that people who learn about history will never truly understand everything they learn about in history. They can learn facts about it but because they're learning about it from a different time, it affects how they interpret history and may cause them to have a very different perspective from what actually happened.
    This can be applicable to history, specifically about wars. In history class, we are learning about WWI; the events that occurred during the war, the countries involved in the war, specific people that played a role in the war, etc . However, we don’t really get to understand how the people involved in it felt. Today, Mr. Vogeley talked about how soldiers have not slept for several days which caused them to have hallucinations. Even though, we may know this fact, we don’t know how it really affected them. We can make a guess based on what we know or have experienced but it doesn’t reflect what would have actually happened.
    Books don’t always give the full story.
    To what extent do the "countless minor scenes and interiors" affect one's understanding of history?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeni
      I agree with "Books don't always give the full story." Due to the fact that the person writing all the information about the past might not be a primary source. Most information is secondary source, making the information bias. The book might talk about events from the past but will not always have the perspective of the people that were involved in it. To me, history will always have its lies in between the facts. The information that is available in the present might be different from the past event. Without the real scenes we will never know the truth. The truth that is kept in the past wont reveal its self without evidence, unfortunately, the evidence isn't always revealed, keeping us confused, with no answers to our present. Thus, making our knowledge, limited.

      Delete
    2. Can we ever truly get an unbiased, objective view of history? Does that mean that it is not worth studying?

      Delete
  9. Ganiu
    In my opinion the quote discusses how incomplete the work of a historian is because their work is not objective. There work does not get all the opinions and experiences of all the participants in the subject they are doing there research on. They must rely more on the research they do and their opinion on the topic they are doing. This quote is applicable to history because historian must basically do a research on a subject and give their opinion of what happened. They are not at the incident of the moment in history but must be admirers and investigators. It is the same with the history books we read because the data is not thorough but lacking. We are only getting an earshot of the moment but not partaking in it. In my opinion ear shots themselves can be manipulated misconstrued because we might not hear them clearly. I mean look at how history has been and is still being manipulated based on the culture, religion, and ideology of the writer and publisher. Look at how Texas is trying to change the whole civil war and the creation of mankind. To add upon that look at how even historian don't agree about historic events or plans such as the Scheiflen Plan. A knowledge issue for this quote is "How can historic information be manipulated through wording effects?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can we ever get to an objective point of view with history when customs, values and beliefs are not universal?

      Delete
  10. Meng #20

    In my opinion, this quote means that history should not be yearned, the purpose of history is not to reverse the dead but in fact it should let us learn a lesson about the past and make a better tomorrow. History is part of all of us, its made us who we are today, it will always be there and never languish. History tells us to let the past pass even if its a honor, and on the other hand we should left the deplores as it is because it is a lesson learned and finally we should be happy about what makes us happy. I think this quote can be very closely related to history because the good things and bad things we done in the past made us who we are today. For example, back in the 1700's when the United States finally declared war on the British, we won and we earned our freedom from the British, this is something we as Americans should be very proud and feel honor about. Today, every 4th of July, we celebrate the Independence Day and because of the "taxation without representation event", every single state in the United States has representative in the congress. The slavery incident in the past was not a "very good looking history" that represent the United States, however from that event we learned a lesson of treating everyone equally and no discrimination, so today, we celebrate Martin Luther King's Birthday because of his sacrifice and leadership during the Civil rights Movements. But, people with different cultural background and race might view slavery as something that is beneficial However, this leads me to the question of How can we be sure of the histories we mark today as right or wrong tomorrow?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mario
    3A
    The Quote: “There are no facts only interpretations” basically means that what we believe to be truth is actually just the perspective of another being and we just interpret it as the truth or a fact because that is what our mentally has caused us to believe.
    Quote in own words: Different perspectives make up facts.
    This quote is applicable to the History chapter within the text because as discussed in the book and supported by the quote it states that Facts don’t select themselves-they are chosen to serve the intent, purpose or expectation of the historian. When we look at it facts stated by historian are in reality their perception of what he or she thinks took place in history. As stated in the text perception directs the selection or deselection of facts. With so many different views on what takes place in history there comes times where we don’t even question the facts given by historian rather we just accept them to be the truth and factual. Going back to the quote I can now understand why “there are no facts only interpretations” we take in what we believe what happened and as the support of that truth grows, many take in that interpretation rather than their perception. Which is why there are no facts only interpretations.
    ToKish implications:
    Tokish implications include the different perceptions brought toward something we consider true. The form of language used within history.
    KI: To what extent can our own perceptions be considered the truth?
    What role does our perception play toward history being factual?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i agree with the the interpretation of mario's quote that there really is a fact, a fact is what everybody agrees should be the answer of something.
      Cynthia

      Delete
    2. Meng

      I strongly agree with this quote, "there are no facts only interpretations". As Mario said, connecting to the History chapter, fact doesn't select themselves, they are chose to serve the intent, purpose or expectations of the historians. There are no universal definitions for "fact". Facts are being made based on a group of people's perceptive, what everyone agrees on, it is call a fact. However, every one has a different perspective based on their race, experience , gender and etc. For example, there are many different sides of one specific event in the history, because there are many different historians that are out there and researching. We, as knowers sometimes don't even question anything that's been giving by a historians because we believe since they are historians, they will always be right, which as Mario said, its our interpretation of it, but not a fact.

      Delete
  12. Edwin R.
    I had the quote by Kenneth stamp. It read: “With the historian it is an article of faith that knowledge of the past is key to understanding the present." This quote, I perceive to mean that a historian or anyone who wishes to understand the present (including social movements, ideologies, and wars), must first understand the past, historical background. In a way, it serves as a warning to people, primarily world leaders, to understand the past and know the consequences of the past so that “bad” history would not be repeated. In relationship to history, one can use the example of understanding our present economic hardship by first understanding the Great depression and its causes. It would give the knower the ability to compare today’s wrong with yesterday’s. In terms of warnings, the great depression, in my perception, was to be served as an example of what not to do to evade future depressions. Another example would be that of understanding today’s conflicts in the Middle East, and as I learned in my history class, a majority of today’s international problems, by first understanding that of the world wars era and its effects. In a way one must know the background, in this case historical to understand the present. This can also be applied to literature, in which in most cases the reader would read the historical background or in some cases the biography of the author, as we did with to kill a mockingbird, with a house for Mr. Biswas, and many others to understand what the book means or tries to expose in a deeper way. The way TOK plays a role in this is that the knower must use reason extensively to connect the present with the past, as accepting the relationship between the past and present is referred to being a faith. Also, that one’s perception of the past may lead to one’s understanding of the present and the same can be said if switched around. Knowledge questions that arises are:
    To what extent does ones perception affect one’s perception of the present?
    Does the past define the present?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jose

      I do agree with the point Edwin has made that for many things, not just history and literature, it always helps to have background information on a subject in order to fully appreciate and understand what is in front of you. It isn't something one HAS to do, but it helps in the long run as you'll most likely have less confusion.

      Delete
  13. (Maxwell)
    "History is a cyclic poem written by Time upon the memories of man." by Bysshe Shelley.
    I interpreted "history" from this quote in such a way that I thought of it as actually a poem, or form of expression that can only be written by one's own memory of the event during the time period in which it occurred.
    This is applicable to History because it explains how history offers a record or is recorded. However is also very much explains how history is sensitive to paradigm interpretations. The values and judgments that dominates a period in history can very much determine what one may record as history during that time period, hence when the author of the quote inputted, "... poem written by Time upon the memories of man."
    With the quote I received, "History is a cyclic poem written by Time upon the memories of man." by Bysshe Shelley, a knowledge issue that quickly came to mind was, How can one's own memory of the past hinder us from obtaining the total picture from what actually occurred in any time period from the past?".

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sagen
    “It is the true office of history to represent the events themselves, together with the counsels, and to leave the observations and conclusions thereupon to the liberty and faculty of every man’s judgment.”
    In my opinion, this quote refers to the government and how they use lawyers, or “counsels,” to write laws for pedestrians to abide by; however, it is the citizen’s job to take those laws into consideration and follow them accordingly. The “office of history” could be a portrayal of a long standing government because an office can resemble anything form of corporation of some sort but the history of that office is something that has been through so much experience. The events represent a law or bill or some type of rule. “Every man’s judgment” is the course of action that people take when they decide whether they want to follow or disobey the rules. This quote can be applicable to content in Literature because it uses language to describe a meaning or message for its readers to make something of. This can also relate to History because it recounts a long and existing form of accordance that people have taken towards the government. An example of a TOKish implication that I found in this quote that they use an absolute term: “every man.” In Theory of Knowledge we have learned not to use these types of terms because nothing can be compared to every person. It is a misleading quote because it leads the readers to believe something different. To what extent can the misinterpretations of language impact one’s perception of their surroundings?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Odunayo-

      I interpreted the quote somewhat differently. My interpretation is that, "it is but history's job to tell the story of what happened using witnesses and documents. It is then man's job to take that history and make conclusions based on the facts given." I agree with this quote because i believe that there in any situation, whether a war or party, there is truly only one way that event took place. How people interpret that event and attempt to analyse that event is where personal biases come into play.

      Delete
  15. Chinua Achebe's response to the question asked is really trying to explain to us that how African belief structure and European belief structure are the same because European countries owe their civilization to African countries like Ethiopia. And i agree with him when he says that the language, religion and customs in the Mediterranean are derived from Egypt and south Africa because since European/Mediterranean countries colonized African countries they learned from the Africans and so therefore they copied some of their customs and beliefs.
    Cynthia

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ben
    Knowing means to know what it is to be, to know what kind to be, and to know how to be unique. Yet, we are shaped by what our ancestors, or how humans overall, have done in the past. If one wants a hint as to what they would amount to, what the future holds for them, they would have to look in the past. Past events in history have certainly shaped the way humans live nowadays, and has helped shape today's society. An event gone different or a different decision made could have completely change the ways of today. The quote by R. G. Collingwood can be very well be applied to history. All the events in the past, all decisions that have been made have shaped the way people are today. The decisions we make today will definitely shape the way people live in the future and we will become the past that shaped a today.
    KQ: To what extent do historical events shape the way people are?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love your Knowledge Question because we could question what would happen if Christ never arrived, Jews were never enslave, the African diaspora never occurred, Arch-Duke Ferdinand never assassinated, and no Hiroshima. How would this impact the personality or views of the people spoken about above. Your question caught my attention because I always wondered what would have happened to Africa if it was never discovered would it stay behind the rest of the Eastern Continents or would it slowly but gradually catch up to the rest of the world. Would this have stopped racism or would not having showed up in Japan would the Japanese have not attacked the Russia and China or briefly been known as a nation of copiers. Maybe only Europe would have advanced ahead of the rest of the world or not.

      Delete
    2. Ben, give some specificity here. Provide an example.

      Delete
  17. Nya
    I didn’t see my name assigned to any quote so I decided to choose my own. I chose quote #27: “To know anything ... we must know its effects; to see men we must see their works that we may learn what reason has dictated, or passion has incited, and find what are the most powerful motives of action. To judge rightly of the present, we must oppose it to the past; for all judgment is comparative, and of the future nothing can be known. The truth is, that no mind is much employed upon the present: recollection and anticipation fill up almost all our moments. Our passions are joy and grief, love and hatred, hope and fear. Of joy and grief the past is the object, and the future hope and fear; even love and hatred respect the past, for the cause must have been before the effect.” Johnson: Rasselas
    To put this quote in my own words, what I took from it was that to understand or even interpret the future, we should analyze the past to find the causes of our present leading to our future. They talk about the importance of using the past and comparing it to the present because both history and the future are comparative elements. This quote applies more to content in History rather than literature. To connect this directly to one of our current courses, in Mr.Vogeley’s class we discuss how the effects before WWI caused WWI and consequently the actions from WWI caused WWII. To connect this to the present-future, everyone is looking at Serbia and wondering if we (the U.S.) should go to war with them because of decisions that they have made. In order to help this decision, Obama will have to reflect on past encounters in war with other countries in the past both for the same reason (use of poisonous gas) and war with other countries in general. TOK-ish implications of this quote are all the emotions that are included and the use of the word ‘truth’. These are important aspects of the quote because it changes the way the reader interprets the quote altogether.
    Knowledge Question:
    How does comparing the past to the present help interpret the future?
    To what extent does history represent the future? What truth does the past hold?






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ganiu
      I agree with what you said Nya, about how the actions that are occurring in Syria and Obama's reflection on the past can reflect the future. The fact we are always constantly being told that history is always repeating itself, especially in World History. I like your first knowledge question about how looking to our past impacts our future, because always change our mistake and looking back so we can notice our mistakes. Your Knowledge Question correlates with Ben in the sense that our actions in the past can impact our future. I don't think we actually interrupt the future or that reflecting upon our past can impact our future unless we take actions to fix those mistakes or plans to prevent us from repeating our past mistakes.

      Delete
    2. What truth theory does this pertain to Nya? Elaborate please.

      Delete
  18. Kolleen
    "Comments"
    I found two of the comments very interesting because the quotes that were commented on were polar opposites. The comments were by Jose and Edwin. From what I read the author of Jose's quote basically said that history isn't important while the author of Edwin's quote said that history is very important. An interesting interpretation Jose was "Why learn something that reflects the inequalities in humanity?" Meanwhile, Edwin interpreted his quote as in order to understand the present we must understand the past. These comments grabbed my attention the most because I can relate to both of them. For the first 14 years of my life I felt like understanding history was unnecessary, pointless, and troublesome. Although I did not have the same reason as Jose's author to see history as insignificant, I cared for it the same way he did. And because I didn't care for the subject I didn't do my best. Once I became a sophomore and learned about government as Mr. Harrison stressed its importance, I had a more open mind about social studies and history. I now understand, as Edwin's author was quoted, "...knowledge of the past is key to understanding the present." Now that I understand that, I can relate past events to current events and develop deeper understandings towards all pertinent subjects. The more I understand about past events involving gender differences and racial differences the better I interact with others because I'm more conscious of how people may be affected by what I say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not explore the inequalities in humanity so that we can work to eliminate them from future histories?

      Delete
  19. Yeni
    "The value of history is, indeed, not scientific but moral: by liberalizing the mind, by deepening, the sympathies, by fortifying the will, it enables us to control, not society, but ourselves -- a much more important thing; it prepares us to live more humanely in the present and to meet rather than to foretell the future. Carl Becker, 1873-1945"
    This quote gives an insight on what the significance of history is to people and how the real interpretation of history should be viewed as. Moral is what matters and science is not what determines the importance of history. It is mainly on what we can get from it and it makes us learn from past mistakes, where we learn to see the right from wrong. This quote applies for both history and literature. Events that have happened in the past make us think and analyze on how it affects us now and from there we make changes to our lives. Just like the accident in 9/11, now we see that it wasn't safe to enter anyone to our country and now the country is more secured with Homeland security. Literature plays a big role because it shows us how important written documents can be, such as the bible. To christians, a bible shows a lot of history that exemplifies morals and this may cause personal affects to people. What is said in the bible makes people "change" and they learn from the stories in the bible. People help themselves by realizing how important history can be to each individual. Tok comes into place when thinking about each individuals beliefs. Belief is what determines the amount of moral they have within themselves, affecting how they view history and how much they gain from it. To what extent can someones religion affect their interpretation of the importance of history?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hyon
      I agree with Yeni, the value of history is that it allows us to learn from our mistakes. I believe that is why it is so important to learn about history or else people would continue to make the same mistakes as history repeats itself.

      Delete
    2. So history does not repeat itself? Why the continued genocides in history? wars?

      Delete
  20. Esther
    " History does nothing possess no enormous wealth, fights no battle. It is rather man the real living man who does everything and possess fights it is not history as if she were a person apart who uses men as a means to work out her purposes but history itself is nothing but the activity of men pursuing their purpose" -Karl Marx

    While reading this quote my first reaction was that history is a overall unified perception of the past and men make up history, they are not categorized differently. If they were then history would have no definite understanding. To what extent is mankind defined by actions or wars within the past? If these wars make up history and men make up the wars then is man not a part of history? In my opinion history does possess enormous wealth, although it is not that of the literal understanding of enormous wealth, but that of a deeper meaning. Those who possess enormous wealth are considered privileged and those who are privileged are considered lucky.History provides us with an understanding of the past, it is stated so that we do not repeat the past but learn from it, although that is not always the case. So if we do not make the same life altering mistakes as that of our ancestors are we not lucky? After careful interpretation of the quote and reading it threw a different lens i began to understand Marx perception of history. One generally perceives history based off of their own personal biases. In my opinion Marx interpretation of history is that history doesn't define us we define it. Man is the one who makes up history rather then history mapping out the future of man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So if this is the case, then what role does power play in who maps out history?

      Delete
  21. Jamilet C.
    #28- History is for Human self-knowledge:
    Its funny how this quote was assigned to me, for I'm always wondering why people would go to such lengths in search for the past. Since history are traces left behind, something that was left and not in need for the future path. In which the past was only found through the curiosity of the human mind because what we discover is only for our own knowledge, to create an understanding of what use to have a known story. So, the reason to why history was able to become knowledgeable. Known to human kind, was because of how the human habit of discovering what is hidden becomes a wide-spread of its own search of self-knowledge . We human like to create a story or reason to everything, for those things that are uncommon to the present time, We become haste for not knowing its meaning. For humans are emotional creatures and like to create connections to why things are how they are now. In the history chapter things like research and artifacts are found because of the urge of self knowledge. It also states that "emotion offers the imaginative interpretation of historical fact and it gives meaning to the contexts of historical fact..." which tells me that history is meaningless without emotion. The emotion of curiosity that engulfs history.
    KI: to what extent would emotion alter the drive of historical finds and their meaning or representational purpose of the historical fact?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mario
      I really like Jams KI. I also agree with Jam on how we as humans are in search for a reason to things so we trace the past. Now what we make up becomes a story for humanity to believe. Its that human desire for more knowledge that drives us toward discovery. If we didn't add any emotion toward what we want then the knowledge we gain wouldn't really be seen as knowledge. I think in order for something to count as knowledge for you it has to have some sort of meaning to you whether it be negative postive

      Delete
    2. So if we do not research the past, then how will we keep from repeating mistakes in the future? Or could we look at it from the Aymara point of view. The future is behind them and the past is in front of them. This is quite perceptually different from how we view it. Arguably, peoples below the equator view history and time this way.

      Delete
  22. Paola 3A
    Comment to a classmate

    I want to comment on the quote that Maxwell and Hyon since they kind of fit together. Maxwell's quote intent is to say that one's thought about a certain time in the past affects them in a certain way because they either experienced it or had family members who passed on the ideas ever since, and because it is part of their culture to know it, it affects them and influence the way they see other things. When it comes to Hyon's comment its intent was to tell us that for the people who studies History will never understand the actual sentiments that were expressed at the time especially those that lost their lives then and were not able to be interviewed or to even have to speak of it. And for those that did went through it, they understand it but when they express it to others all they could ever do is give sympathy and nothing but that. Although I find that giving sympathy will never be accomplished because one will never understand by feeling sorry when one should be empathetic and give them that understanding necessary to move on from what has happened, although anything may be expressed and with that you can understand the intentions to their actions. History does not have two types of feeling -sadness and happiness- but there are other types of feelings that present as well.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for posting!!

Swift