History Book Recommendations

[nicephoras]

Someone attempted to write a new version of that kind of book a few years ago, I got it as a spec copy for a class I was teaching, I think it's on my shelves somewhere... Oh, hey, it's John Lewis Gaddis who teaches military history at Yale. It's called The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past. It looks pretty good, chapers on time and space, on structure and process, on agency, etc.

That's pretty interesting - I'll check it out. As a non-US history focused person, a lot of the US historiography goes right past me. There's no "Roman historiography" master text - you just sort of know who's who and read the internal monologues of the historians in their works because they discuss each other. You can't really do much Roman history unless you understand who Syme is, what prosopography is, etc. I do currently have a book on Roman historiography throughout history, but its one of the about 13 books in my stack that I need to read.

[needs]

*shudder* He's really, really boring.

But he was executed by the Nazis, so that inherently makes him interesting.

You want boring, read the Annales school guys. The long duree applies to their books as well.

[nicephoras]

But he was executed by the Nazis, so that inherently makes him interesting.

Huh. This reminds me of the US policy of "if they're imprisoned by Mussolini, they must have been dissidents of the fascist regime" theory after the war. That's how they ended up releasing all the mafiosi back onto the streets.

[Anthony]

Huh. This reminds me of the US policy of "if they're imprisoned by Mussolini, they must have been dissidents of the fascist regime" theory after the war. That's how they ended up releasing all the mafiosi back onto the streets.

Exactly, they were against Mussolini, so what was the problem ;)

[johan neeskens]

Unfortunately, there's no such thing as "simple fact". For every statistic that's included, its always subjective simply by the choice of excluding something else. You can certainly say that something is more "objective" than something else and there are certain things that are "historical facts", like, say, the fact that the Battle of Kursk occurred in 1943 (unless, of course, you don't use our calendar.......). But as soon as you create a document, it is by definition subject to some bias. Which, as Carr's book (see post above) points out, isn't such a bad thing, so long as are aware of the problem.
In addition, it shouldn't be forgotten that someone reading the same language in two different eras will interpret the same language in potentially completely different ways. The subject of historical "bias" is always double sided.

Of course. It's just that reading the news as it was reported on on the day, without a journalistic interpretation and without an evaluation in hindsight, is really interesting.

[johan neeskens]

Do US schools teach history chronologically?

[Dead Fingers]

Do US schools teach history chronologically?

Yes. And I would imagine that most public elementary/high schools do that. However, there may be some schools, private or public magnet schools that teach history in a variety of ways.

And the Netherlands?

[johan neeskens]

Yes. And I would imagine that most public elementary/high schools do that. However, there may be some schools, private or public magnet schools that teach history in a variety of ways.

And the Netherlands?

Primary school typically deals with the basics, from pre-historic to today, as for secondary school it depends on the school type, but it is in chronological order until you start evaluating everything you've learnt in the exam year. Even the history of literature is in chronological order over here, Dutch 12 yr olds in catholic pre-university education start off with Beowulf in English class.

There must be a more creative way of teaching history though.

[Dead Fingers]

Primary school typically deals with the basics, from pre-historic to today, as for secondary school it depends on the school type, but it is in chronological order until you start evaluating everything you've learnt in the exam year. Even the history of literature is in chronological order over here, Dutch 12 yr olds in catholic pre-university education start off with Beowulf in English class.

There must be a more creative way of teaching history though.


Well, there is something to be said anbout "chronological" when it comes to history. It could be hard to go from the Civil War to say, the Moon Landing in one week. :) Even going from Slavery in this country to Civil Rights a student would be hard pressed to understand it all w/o a chronological context.

However, you could, in some programs "theme" your instruction and not necessarily have to do it in chronological order.

RDIT: same with literature as well. Even if you are taking, say 18th Century British Literature as a class, chances are they will start with the Romantics and end with the Victorians/Edwardians

[johan neeskens]

Well, there is something to be said anbout "chronological" when it comes to history. It could be hard to go from the Civil War to say, the Moon Landing in one week. :) Even going from Slavery in this country to Civil Rights a student would be hard pressed to understand it all w/o a chronological context.

However, you could, in some programs "theme" your instruction and not necessarily have to do it in chronological order.


That's my point, either theme it or concentrate on a specific region. I reckon it's more educational if world events in different eras are linked. As in 'see it went wrong here and then and that's why it went there and then as well'.

[Dead Fingers]

That's my point, either theme it or concentrate on a specific region. I reckon it's more educational if world events in different eras are linked. As in 'see it went wrong here and then and that's why it went there and then as well'.


I think it also depends on the instructor and how they "make it relevant" to today or relating to other events. You are going to get more of that in college as opposed to elementary school or high school, i.e., more "commentary" and questions about "Why" as opposed to "this is what happened"

[needs]

Getting afield from books here, but I think any successful history class, especially at the lower levels, works when it puts their students "in" history, when it gets them to confront the way that people thought and the choices that they could make, rather than just reciting some chronological narrative. I've used role playing in introductory college surveys with Reconstruction, industrial reorganization in the 50s, differing of freedom during the 1960s, and it's worked very well.

The tough thing is, though, you have to give the students some baseline knowledge so they can place themselves in history and attempt to see the past through others eyes. You can't get someone to see how the attitudes in Reconstruction developed without knowing about Black Codes, constitutional debates, and differing understandings of emancipation. The only way to do this is careful reading of primary and secondary texts, which is far from the emphasis in high school education and is becoming less so with mandated standards of historical knowledge that hue to politicians' desire for a patriotic history rather than a history that complex and contingient. (And also something that the proposed 'national standards' for university education is seeking).

[Dead Fingers]

Getting afield from books here, but I think any successful history class, especially at the lower levels, works when it puts their students "in" history, when it gets them to confront the way that people thought and the choices that they could make, rather than just reciting some chronological narrative. I've used role playing in introductory college surveys with Reconstruction, industrial reorganization in the 50s, differing of freedom during the 1960s, and it's worked very well.

Do you bring people in, say Vietnam Vets or other people who were a part of historical events. Does that help students you think?


... is becoming less so with mandated standards of historical knowledge that hue to politicians' desire for a patriotic history rather than a history that complex and contingient. (And also something that the proposed 'national standards' for university education is seeking).

More teaching to the tests?

[needs]

Do you bring people in, say Vietnam Vets or other people who were a part of historical events. Does that help students you think?

I haven't, but that's mainly due to the fact that I haven't been at any instititution long enough to develop the kind of community ties and ties to people that you need in order to do that.

I have had students do oral histories of their families' history in regard to a limited number of topics (civil rights movement, Vietnam War, suburbanization and White flight). The best paper was a Black student from Detroit writing about her grandparents' experience from being a pioneering family in an all-White neighborhood of northwest Detroit (the shit they went through would shock almost everyone, the experience of people integrating northern neighborhoods is one of the great untold stories of postwar American history -- rocks, paint, organized protests outside their house for 12 hours a day for two months).



More teaching to the tests?

Somewhat, but more dangerously an attitude that history education is about patriotism and ethnic and national pride rather than the study of people making difficult choices in times of limited options. I think the kind of patriotic history that many students get hurts both their sense of the past and of the present.

[Dead Fingers]

I haven't, but that's mainly due to the fact that I haven't been at any instititution long enough to develop the kind of community ties and ties to people that you need in order to do that.

I have had students do oral histories of their families' history in regard to a limited number of topics (civil rights movement, Vietnam War, suburbanization and White flight). The best paper was a Black student from Detroit writing about her grandparents' experience from being a pioneering family in an all-White neighborhood of northwest Detroit (the shit they went through would shock almost everyone, the experience of people integrating northern neighborhoods is one of the great untold stories of postwar American history -- rocks, paint, organized protests outside their house for 12 hours a day for two months).


I bring that up as Minnesota Public Radio recently had on a couple of Holocaust survivors talk about a local exhibit going on at the moment and they got into a brief discussion of the importance of them going into schools and churches and telling people/kids their stories.


Somewhat, but more dangerously an attitude that history education is about patriotism and ethnic and national pride rather than the study of people making difficult choices in times of limited options. I think the kind of patriotic history that many students get hurts both their sense of the past and of the present.

That scares the hell out of me.

[johan neeskens]

Getting afield from books here, but I think any successful history class, especially at the lower levels, works when it puts their students "in" history, when it gets them to confront the way that people thought and the choices that they could make, rather than just reciting some chronological narrative. I've used role playing in introductory college surveys with Reconstruction, industrial reorganization in the 50s, differing of freedom during the 1960s, and it's worked very well.

The tough thing is, though, you have to give the students some baseline knowledge so they can place themselves in history and attempt to see the past through others eyes. You can't get someone to see how the attitudes in Reconstruction developed without knowing about Black Codes, constitutional debates, and differing understandings of emancipation. The only way to do this is careful reading of primary and secondary texts, which is far from the emphasis in high school education and is becoming less so with mandated standards of historical knowledge that hue to politicians' desire for a patriotic history rather than a history that complex and contingient. (And also something that the proposed 'national standards' for university education is seeking).

You're a history teacher? I salute you for you sensible approach. Is it scary at times when you realise you're actually shaping the opinions of your students about history?

I had the same history teacher for all six years of my secondary education, and I loved the way he taught as he was considered different even by his colleagues. Our grades for example weren't just based on test results but also on how actively we had participated in class which is not the way things are typically done in Holland. Before starting on world war II, he asked us to write down what we thought had caused it. He collected our answers and in subsequent weeks evaluated them one by one. I also loved his tests, they typically were just the one question, for example: "You're a Republican in 1769 in Amsterdam, describe how you feel about the stadhouders issue". Some students will hate that type of testing, of course, but I loved it.

[Anthony]

You're a history teacher? I salute you for you sensible approach. Is it scary at times when you realise you're actually shaping the opinions of your students about history?

I had the same history teacher for all six years of my secondary education, and I loved the way he taught as he was considered different even by his colleagues. Our grades for example weren't just based on test results but also on how actively we had participated in class which is not the way things are typically done in Holland. Before starting on world war II, he asked us to write down what we thought had caused it. He collected our answers and in subsequent weeks evaluated them one by one. I also loved his tests, they typically were just the one question, for example: "You're a Republican in 1769 in Amsterdam, describe how you feel about the stadhouders issue". Some students will hate that type of testing, of course, but I loved it.

My 12th Grade History teacher's final question on our final exam was "Ask yourself a question and answer it."

[johan neeskens]

My 12th Grade History teacher's final question on our final exam was "Ask yourself a question and answer it."

Brilliant! I wonder if there was anyone that left that open.

[Dead Fingers]

@needs

Any particular text(s) you use for your class?

[needs]

@needs

Any particular text(s) you use for your class?


I teach at the college level and use almost all monographs (but right now I'm in the glorious, glorious land of a postdoc, nothing but writing for a year). I teach modern US, environmental, and American Indian history, so I can give advice on those areas, but I avoid using textbooks because I could never relate to them and because I don't think they provide a good model for how to do history, which is my main concern in teaching.

One thing I would recommend is Eric Foner's Story of American Freedom, which is as close to a textbook as I use. I use it because it still has clearly recognizable arguments that the students can analyze and evaluate.