This book, by Emily Rosenberg, is a chronicling of the different ways in which Pearl Harbor has been remembered. In a sense it is a history of the history of Pearl Harbor. But it also shows how Pearl Harbor has taken on different meanings since 1941 and how it has been adopted by popular culture to fit individual meanings and the necessities of different times. I am going to relate the aspect that I found most fascinating. The book as a whole is very interesting and I highly recommend it.
Pearl Harbor emerged as a contentious issue before World War II ended. A controversy that continues to this day (in the minds of some) is the question of who is responsible (or culpable, depending on your position) for the colossal surprise the Japanese Navy achieved on December 7, 1941 and the resulting drubbing that the US Army and Navy took that day. The respective commanders on the ground were relieved of duty and discharged without court martial. Soon after the war some began to argue that President Roosevelt knew of the coming attack or deliberately provoked it to shock the American public into war.
There have been many books written on the subject of who is to blame (Rosenberg discusses some) and although the objective works (including Congressional and internal military reviews) have placed the blame across the spectrum of civilian and military officials (though mostly military), including the commanders at Pearl Harbor, arguments have persisted that the blame rests in the Oval Office.
This has never really been what the argument was about, I extrapolate from Rosenberg. The initial fingers pointing at FDR were from vehement partisans who opposed almost everything he ever did -- they were Republicans. Things really got interesting in this debate after Vietnam. Military men (and militant civilians) were disgusted that America lost a war. Of course the war wasn't unwinable [false] so who was to blame? Politicians! for net letting the military do their things (which may or may not have included dropping the bomb until they got tired of it. And so the debate over who to blame for Pearl Harbor (Washington or the army) took on new meaning. Various specious arguments have been leveled attempting to lift blame from the commanders.
But it goes deeper. As Rosenberg shows, for some the memory of Pearl Harbor evokes images of a different America where the masses were stirred to great Patriotic endeavors against evil brown people. This of course wasn't quite the case with Vietnam (see: 1960s, Kent State). Certain people apparently miss the days when men were men, women were women, good guys were good, and bad guys were sub-human.
Now, sadly, everyone hates America, except for Newt Gingrich and the former Strom Thurmond. Both of these gentlemen threw their hat into controversies that touch on these same themes. Interpretations at the USS Arizona Memorial and the Enola Gay (in the Smithsonian), while attempting to present a balanced interpretation of these cultural artifacts, stressing the different ways of knowing, remembering, and understanding them, ended up just hating America instead.
Which touches on another issue: conservative America's fundamental distrust and disdain for professional academics. Newt Gingrich (who somehow has a Ph.D. in history!) had this to say: " . . . most Americans . . . are sick and tired of being told by some cultural elite that they should be ashamed of their country." I think this notion can be boiled down to something that is essential to history: the truth is never simple, in fact something like "truth" in history is not really attainable as a singular notion. There are multiple truths: we call them interpretations. Its as close as ya'll gonna git. Anyone who doesn't grasp that does not deserve a Ph.D. Also, the Park Service (who ran both of these gigs) does not have an agenda, at least not an intellectual one, trust me.
Well, this is neither a book review or response. Its more of a book inspired harangue, but there you go. This one's for you Strom.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Fighting For American Manhood
Fighting For American Manhood by Kristen Hoganson is an gender interpretation of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine War. Her argument, as I see it, is that issues of gender deserve a place in explaining the American imperial impulse at the turn of the 20th century. She makes a pretty good argument.
Gendered language was used heavily in the public discourse and political debate over the issue of war with Spain. Politicians who favored war portrayed Cuba as a damsel in distress, and America as the dashing masculine hero that would come to her rescue. The issue of American manhood was also very much on people's minds. Many took the position that the thirty years of peace accompanied with commercial prosperity since the Civil War had left the younger generation of men soft and generally lacking in masculine and martial values. War was seen as a way to remedy this, an ethos very much advocated by Teddy Roosevelt. The (falsely) perceived attack on the USS Maine was framed in terms very much like a duel: America had been challenged by Spain, and no honorable man can refuse such a challenge. The debate in Congress over war was essentially a penis measuring contest, and anyone who waxed on the issue (President McKinley and Senator Hoar) had their manhood questioned. A brawl actually broke out on the floor of Congress -- testosterone was flowing like Natty Light at a frat party. Hoganson also makes the argument that war was a way to deflect the Women's Suffrage movement that was picking up steam, although I think this argument is a little bit weaker than her other points.
This is the first gender history that I have ever read, and it was pretty amazing to read how much these guys talked about manhood and such. It's pretty crazy. Its hard to oppose something when your manhood and, by extension (no pun intended), your political power are attached to that issue. Very few did oppose war, in the end. It seems like Hoganson tries to advance gender as more important than other issues that lead America to war (commercial interests in Cuba, the non-gendered issue of the USS Maine, and imperialism in general) and she doesn't sell me that far. But I definitely think, after reading this, that issues of gender were central to the language of war, if not a significant ideological underpinning behind it.
Gendered language was used heavily in the public discourse and political debate over the issue of war with Spain. Politicians who favored war portrayed Cuba as a damsel in distress, and America as the dashing masculine hero that would come to her rescue. The issue of American manhood was also very much on people's minds. Many took the position that the thirty years of peace accompanied with commercial prosperity since the Civil War had left the younger generation of men soft and generally lacking in masculine and martial values. War was seen as a way to remedy this, an ethos very much advocated by Teddy Roosevelt. The (falsely) perceived attack on the USS Maine was framed in terms very much like a duel: America had been challenged by Spain, and no honorable man can refuse such a challenge. The debate in Congress over war was essentially a penis measuring contest, and anyone who waxed on the issue (President McKinley and Senator Hoar) had their manhood questioned. A brawl actually broke out on the floor of Congress -- testosterone was flowing like Natty Light at a frat party. Hoganson also makes the argument that war was a way to deflect the Women's Suffrage movement that was picking up steam, although I think this argument is a little bit weaker than her other points.
This is the first gender history that I have ever read, and it was pretty amazing to read how much these guys talked about manhood and such. It's pretty crazy. Its hard to oppose something when your manhood and, by extension (no pun intended), your political power are attached to that issue. Very few did oppose war, in the end. It seems like Hoganson tries to advance gender as more important than other issues that lead America to war (commercial interests in Cuba, the non-gendered issue of the USS Maine, and imperialism in general) and she doesn't sell me that far. But I definitely think, after reading this, that issues of gender were central to the language of war, if not a significant ideological underpinning behind it.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
There Will Be Blood
Dr. John Brobst, the instructor for my class in Oil and World Power, made an interesting assertion today. He challenged the rhetoric of proclaiming American (and other nations) "addiction" to oil. Specifically he questioned whether the term addiction really applies.
Addiction implies a disorder caused by a chronic and gripping dependence on a particular substance. The symptom and the disease are one. If the substance can simply be taken out of the equation than the disorder is resolved.
Dr. Brobst made a compelling argument that this analogy doesn't hold water. Removing oil from the American economy and way of life would bring society as we know it to a halt, literally. He explained that the foundation of the modern economy is mobility. Almost everything is based on the ability of goods, services, and, not least of all, people, to be able to move reliably from one location to another. (I also couldn't imagine a world without plastic.) The ability for societies to achieve this is possible entirely through oil. He mentioned that the most common correlation for oil and its relation to the 20th century economy and society is blood. This is a perfect illustration why the concept of oil as an addiction is flawed - while humans are dependent on blood, it is not something we could ever "kick." It is like life itself.
I do at least see the industrialized world's dependence on oil as a dependence, which is akin to addiction. And in some ways, I think the analogy does hold up.
In today's class we actually began to follow the course of the West's "experimentation" with hydrocarbons. It started with coal, which I call a "gateway hydrocarbon." Coal was really awesome, so Britain used it a lot. Then it started telling its friends how awesome coal was, and soon everyone was doing it. Pretty soon a whole crowd of nations were "using" coal - we call this the Industrial Revolution. In my paradigm, as you might have picked up on, coal is like marijuana, and the Industrial Revolution (late 1700s to late 1800s, roughly) would be like, let's say the mid to late 1960s.
In this proposed model I liken oil to cocaine. Economies could run faster, more efficient, do amazing things that seemed next to impossible just a short time before. The only problem is that the more oil you use, the more you want, nay, need. Before long oil became the basis for all industrialized economies, and as these economies grew and expanded demand for oil expanded as well. The habit was fully developed. Pretty soon all the younger kids (the developing world) started copying what the cool kids (the developed world) were doing. This continues today.
As I said, quitting cold turkey would be disastrous. You would not recognize the world around you without oil, whether you realize it or not. But in a sense this is like an addiction. It is usually not enough to just quit the substance, it takes a fundamental life change, and fundamental change in the way society and the economy approach energy. Let's say renewable energy sources are like the 12 Step Program.
This is really just meant as a fun intellectual exercise because I do agree with Dr. Brobst's point that the oil as an addiction model is conceptually flawed, although not to be discounted entirely. But I also believe the notion of oil as the blood of life or "the blood of victory" as Clemenceau put it, while true, is dangerous rhetoric to be taken as gospel. Consumption, and indeed dependence on oil, has many dangerous consequences, only some of which we have seen realized. But that is for another blog.
The notion of oil as blood of course evokes one of my favorite movies There Will Be Blood. It is the story of a greed stricken, socio-pathic oil barron whose corruption mirrors the (in my opinion) stark moral void that has accompanied the growth of the oil industry and America's transfusion of oil as the life-blood of the economy.
Addiction implies a disorder caused by a chronic and gripping dependence on a particular substance. The symptom and the disease are one. If the substance can simply be taken out of the equation than the disorder is resolved.
Dr. Brobst made a compelling argument that this analogy doesn't hold water. Removing oil from the American economy and way of life would bring society as we know it to a halt, literally. He explained that the foundation of the modern economy is mobility. Almost everything is based on the ability of goods, services, and, not least of all, people, to be able to move reliably from one location to another. (I also couldn't imagine a world without plastic.) The ability for societies to achieve this is possible entirely through oil. He mentioned that the most common correlation for oil and its relation to the 20th century economy and society is blood. This is a perfect illustration why the concept of oil as an addiction is flawed - while humans are dependent on blood, it is not something we could ever "kick." It is like life itself.
I do at least see the industrialized world's dependence on oil as a dependence, which is akin to addiction. And in some ways, I think the analogy does hold up.
In today's class we actually began to follow the course of the West's "experimentation" with hydrocarbons. It started with coal, which I call a "gateway hydrocarbon." Coal was really awesome, so Britain used it a lot. Then it started telling its friends how awesome coal was, and soon everyone was doing it. Pretty soon a whole crowd of nations were "using" coal - we call this the Industrial Revolution. In my paradigm, as you might have picked up on, coal is like marijuana, and the Industrial Revolution (late 1700s to late 1800s, roughly) would be like, let's say the mid to late 1960s.
In this proposed model I liken oil to cocaine. Economies could run faster, more efficient, do amazing things that seemed next to impossible just a short time before. The only problem is that the more oil you use, the more you want, nay, need. Before long oil became the basis for all industrialized economies, and as these economies grew and expanded demand for oil expanded as well. The habit was fully developed. Pretty soon all the younger kids (the developing world) started copying what the cool kids (the developed world) were doing. This continues today.
As I said, quitting cold turkey would be disastrous. You would not recognize the world around you without oil, whether you realize it or not. But in a sense this is like an addiction. It is usually not enough to just quit the substance, it takes a fundamental life change, and fundamental change in the way society and the economy approach energy. Let's say renewable energy sources are like the 12 Step Program.
This is really just meant as a fun intellectual exercise because I do agree with Dr. Brobst's point that the oil as an addiction model is conceptually flawed, although not to be discounted entirely. But I also believe the notion of oil as the blood of life or "the blood of victory" as Clemenceau put it, while true, is dangerous rhetoric to be taken as gospel. Consumption, and indeed dependence on oil, has many dangerous consequences, only some of which we have seen realized. But that is for another blog.
The notion of oil as blood of course evokes one of my favorite movies There Will Be Blood. It is the story of a greed stricken, socio-pathic oil barron whose corruption mirrors the (in my opinion) stark moral void that has accompanied the growth of the oil industry and America's transfusion of oil as the life-blood of the economy.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
My classes (Fall quarter 2009)
I have three classes this quarter, in addition to the class that I am a TA in.
In addition to these I am a TA for The US and the Vietnam War which will be an international history of the conflict that also examines the effects on the war in the domestic US. I will be doing all the assigned readings and also attending class and taking notes. I hope to be able to lead a couple of the discussion sections in the class.
I have at least one person reading this. Hopefully get a few other interested historians to tune in over the next couple of months. You can witness my trial by fire into grad school.
- Socialism, Dictatorship, and Democracy: Chile, a Case Study
- Seminar in US Foreign Relations
- Oil, the Persian Gulf, and World Power
In addition to these I am a TA for The US and the Vietnam War which will be an international history of the conflict that also examines the effects on the war in the domestic US. I will be doing all the assigned readings and also attending class and taking notes. I hope to be able to lead a couple of the discussion sections in the class.
I have at least one person reading this. Hopefully get a few other interested historians to tune in over the next couple of months. You can witness my trial by fire into grad school.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Statement of Purpose
(This is a slightly abridged copy of the statement of purpose from my graduate application. Hopefully it will give you some insight into my take on history and my goals as a budding historian.)
History is most relevant when it induces its students to pause, evaluate, question, and reconsider their perceptions of their world, their culture, their nation, their community and ultimately where they themselves fit into the larger picture of humanity. This is what it has done for me. To achieve this history must be not only incisive but also relevant and accessible to both academics and laypeople, to the casual enthusiast and the “history buff.” History is the telling of the story of humanity, and for history to be truly important it must tap the minds of every strata of humanity.
As a historian my goal is make history an engaging, poignant, and empowering pursuit, even for those students who feel sidelined by history that is pedantic and seemingly irrelevant. I believe that the only history that is irrelevant is history that does not show the reader a new perspective, question assumptions, or evoke a visceral reaction. The study of history must affect a change – whether it is in one mind or in the minds of ten million. If it does not do this, it is purely, for lack of a better word, academic.
To affect this change a work of history must first be thoroughly researched. Like a high-quality printer producing a detailed image from millions of vague and tiny dots, so are events in history reanimated by a vast myriad of primary sources and numerical data. Details are important to me as a historian. I strive to understand any research subject from many perspectives through a variety and multitude of primary and secondary sources. My task, and the task of all historians, is to discover and convey the cohesive truths to be found amongst these multitudinous details.
The manner in which the historian conveys these cohesive truths invariably affects the degree to which students and readers comprehend them. Innovative use of language and organization makes history not only more accessible, but also makes its relevance all the more pronounced. Language can easily be a pitfall for a work of history as well. Just as a Mozart aria will be ill received if sung out of key, the most pertinent work of history will not be fully understood if poorly written. The language of history must, first and foremost, convey meaning. The art of writing is to convey clearly the appropriate meaning in an engaging and captivating manner. As a historian I strive to use language not just as a craftsman, but as an artist. A book of any kind will be better received if it is enjoyable to read. History can be trenchant and still be a terrific read. The history I plan to research and write should be something that I would not want any reader to fail to grasp.
The relevance of a work of history must be made clear to its reader. To me historical relevance has three components. Academic relevance is the aspects of history that increase the body of knowledge and which may aid in future research. Hisoriographic relevance places a particular piece of research or interpretation in the context of how other historians have treated the subject. Relevance to contemporary humanity is the aspect of history that shows how a particular subject has contributed to the world of today. This final component is the most important to me as a historian. When this contemporary relevance is achieved history can both guide and enlighten, shaping policy and perception at once. The study of history is the study of everything that has taken place during the course of human existence up through this day. Even the most obscured and ancient aspects of human existence shed light on the course of history to this very day, but the significance to the contemporary student and reader must be made clear. Historians have the privilege and the responsibility to show their students and their readers the changing forces, patterns, and institutions that have crafted the world around them and which may continue to do so. Students who understand the relevance of history will develop a superior perspective to shape the future. In this way history frames the future while also informing on the past. This is the challenge and the role of historians in human society.
I strongly believe that history matters – to the mass of humanity, to a nation and a state, to a culture and a sub-culture, to the powerful and the disaffected, to a community and to an individual. I believe in assertive history -- history that challenges and does not assume. I believe in history with a purpose beyond the library and the classroom. I believe in history that molds our collective minds and memories, that steers and guides the very course of civilization, that informs the decisions of institutions scopes and means from the family to the international organization. History matters and I believe in history that matters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I attended Shepherd University for one reason: to study the American Civil War, Shepherd being one of two schools that offered such an undergraduate concentration at the time, and by far the more affordable of the two. Studying the Civil War as an adolescent was my introduction to history. It was my passion for many years, and it guided me to Shepherd. During my undergraduate study of history my historical horizons were stretched beyond what I thought possible. The scope of my knowledge expanded greatly and I improved as a writer and developed research skills, but what grew the most out of my time at Shepherd was my belief that history is not a static thing of kings, dates, battles, and legislation. I came to understand that by showing new perspectives history can be an empowering force and I wanted to be a practicing advocate of it.
While I haven’t lost my interest in the Civil War, 19th century America, and military history I realized shortly before finishing my work at Shepherd that to achieve my goals as a historian I would need to shift my focus to topics with more immediate implications for the modern globalized world. Since finishing my undergraduate work over a year ago I have spent considerable time and thought on broadening my knowledge and perspective on modern American history. During this time I have outlined a general field that I would like to explore in depth as doctoral student.
In the most general sense I am interested in the relationship between the United States and the rest of the world since 1945. I plan to study the how the relationships between American diplomatic policy, military policy, and global economic policy create this broad banded relationship. Furthermore, I am interested in researching how America’s policies throughout the world have affected class relationships, politics, and economic development in specific regions and nations. My interest and focus gravitates towards events and policies of the last thirty years and my instinct as a historian is trace them to their origins.
What domestic motivations lie behind America’s foreign policy in the modern globalized world and what domestic implications have there been as a result of it? In what ways have political ideology influenced America’s global objectives? How have shifts in American party-politics since 1932 affected America’s approach to the rest of the world? To what degree is America’s approach to foreign policy consistent with its moral identity as a nation? What will be the long-term legacy of the Cold War for America’s foreign relations? What aspects of America’s foreign policy have allowed the seeds for global terrorism to grow and what are the prospects for its efforts to suppress terrorism? These are the questions that have and will continue to stand foremost in my mind and which I intend to answer through study and research.
My reading since graduation has guided me towards two regions in which America’s diplomatic, military, and economic involvement have had great import for the future: the Middle East and Latin America. My intention is to apply my future study of American diplomatic history and foreign policy to these two regions, which present their own unique challenges and opportunities for America’s future in the world. Several more specific questions come to mind in regard to these two regions. In Latin America, how have political ideology and economic interest intersected to influence the policies of America and other nations in the region? I am particularly interested in studying the history of American relations with Venezuela, Ecuador, Panama, Cuba, and Nicaragua.In the Middle East, how has America’s economic involvement in the region affected class relationships and how has this affect differed throughout the region?
Many of my questions are general in nature and too large to tackle at the same time. My hope and my goal is to find one specific and salient vein within the scope of my interest in which research is lacking and/or firm conclusions are yet to be drawn and devote my attention to that specific question, issue, nation, policy, or event, making it my métier, or at least a point of departure for my graduate studies. At this point in my education as an historian I know that I am facing in the proper direction. With guidance and meticulous work my path will appear in front of me.
History is most relevant when it induces its students to pause, evaluate, question, and reconsider their perceptions of their world, their culture, their nation, their community and ultimately where they themselves fit into the larger picture of humanity. This is what it has done for me. To achieve this history must be not only incisive but also relevant and accessible to both academics and laypeople, to the casual enthusiast and the “history buff.” History is the telling of the story of humanity, and for history to be truly important it must tap the minds of every strata of humanity.
As a historian my goal is make history an engaging, poignant, and empowering pursuit, even for those students who feel sidelined by history that is pedantic and seemingly irrelevant. I believe that the only history that is irrelevant is history that does not show the reader a new perspective, question assumptions, or evoke a visceral reaction. The study of history must affect a change – whether it is in one mind or in the minds of ten million. If it does not do this, it is purely, for lack of a better word, academic.
To affect this change a work of history must first be thoroughly researched. Like a high-quality printer producing a detailed image from millions of vague and tiny dots, so are events in history reanimated by a vast myriad of primary sources and numerical data. Details are important to me as a historian. I strive to understand any research subject from many perspectives through a variety and multitude of primary and secondary sources. My task, and the task of all historians, is to discover and convey the cohesive truths to be found amongst these multitudinous details.
The manner in which the historian conveys these cohesive truths invariably affects the degree to which students and readers comprehend them. Innovative use of language and organization makes history not only more accessible, but also makes its relevance all the more pronounced. Language can easily be a pitfall for a work of history as well. Just as a Mozart aria will be ill received if sung out of key, the most pertinent work of history will not be fully understood if poorly written. The language of history must, first and foremost, convey meaning. The art of writing is to convey clearly the appropriate meaning in an engaging and captivating manner. As a historian I strive to use language not just as a craftsman, but as an artist. A book of any kind will be better received if it is enjoyable to read. History can be trenchant and still be a terrific read. The history I plan to research and write should be something that I would not want any reader to fail to grasp.
The relevance of a work of history must be made clear to its reader. To me historical relevance has three components. Academic relevance is the aspects of history that increase the body of knowledge and which may aid in future research. Hisoriographic relevance places a particular piece of research or interpretation in the context of how other historians have treated the subject. Relevance to contemporary humanity is the aspect of history that shows how a particular subject has contributed to the world of today. This final component is the most important to me as a historian. When this contemporary relevance is achieved history can both guide and enlighten, shaping policy and perception at once. The study of history is the study of everything that has taken place during the course of human existence up through this day. Even the most obscured and ancient aspects of human existence shed light on the course of history to this very day, but the significance to the contemporary student and reader must be made clear. Historians have the privilege and the responsibility to show their students and their readers the changing forces, patterns, and institutions that have crafted the world around them and which may continue to do so. Students who understand the relevance of history will develop a superior perspective to shape the future. In this way history frames the future while also informing on the past. This is the challenge and the role of historians in human society.
I strongly believe that history matters – to the mass of humanity, to a nation and a state, to a culture and a sub-culture, to the powerful and the disaffected, to a community and to an individual. I believe in assertive history -- history that challenges and does not assume. I believe in history with a purpose beyond the library and the classroom. I believe in history that molds our collective minds and memories, that steers and guides the very course of civilization, that informs the decisions of institutions scopes and means from the family to the international organization. History matters and I believe in history that matters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I attended Shepherd University for one reason: to study the American Civil War, Shepherd being one of two schools that offered such an undergraduate concentration at the time, and by far the more affordable of the two. Studying the Civil War as an adolescent was my introduction to history. It was my passion for many years, and it guided me to Shepherd. During my undergraduate study of history my historical horizons were stretched beyond what I thought possible. The scope of my knowledge expanded greatly and I improved as a writer and developed research skills, but what grew the most out of my time at Shepherd was my belief that history is not a static thing of kings, dates, battles, and legislation. I came to understand that by showing new perspectives history can be an empowering force and I wanted to be a practicing advocate of it.
While I haven’t lost my interest in the Civil War, 19th century America, and military history I realized shortly before finishing my work at Shepherd that to achieve my goals as a historian I would need to shift my focus to topics with more immediate implications for the modern globalized world. Since finishing my undergraduate work over a year ago I have spent considerable time and thought on broadening my knowledge and perspective on modern American history. During this time I have outlined a general field that I would like to explore in depth as doctoral student.
In the most general sense I am interested in the relationship between the United States and the rest of the world since 1945. I plan to study the how the relationships between American diplomatic policy, military policy, and global economic policy create this broad banded relationship. Furthermore, I am interested in researching how America’s policies throughout the world have affected class relationships, politics, and economic development in specific regions and nations. My interest and focus gravitates towards events and policies of the last thirty years and my instinct as a historian is trace them to their origins.
What domestic motivations lie behind America’s foreign policy in the modern globalized world and what domestic implications have there been as a result of it? In what ways have political ideology influenced America’s global objectives? How have shifts in American party-politics since 1932 affected America’s approach to the rest of the world? To what degree is America’s approach to foreign policy consistent with its moral identity as a nation? What will be the long-term legacy of the Cold War for America’s foreign relations? What aspects of America’s foreign policy have allowed the seeds for global terrorism to grow and what are the prospects for its efforts to suppress terrorism? These are the questions that have and will continue to stand foremost in my mind and which I intend to answer through study and research.
My reading since graduation has guided me towards two regions in which America’s diplomatic, military, and economic involvement have had great import for the future: the Middle East and Latin America. My intention is to apply my future study of American diplomatic history and foreign policy to these two regions, which present their own unique challenges and opportunities for America’s future in the world. Several more specific questions come to mind in regard to these two regions. In Latin America, how have political ideology and economic interest intersected to influence the policies of America and other nations in the region? I am particularly interested in studying the history of American relations with Venezuela, Ecuador, Panama, Cuba, and Nicaragua.In the Middle East, how has America’s economic involvement in the region affected class relationships and how has this affect differed throughout the region?
Many of my questions are general in nature and too large to tackle at the same time. My hope and my goal is to find one specific and salient vein within the scope of my interest in which research is lacking and/or firm conclusions are yet to be drawn and devote my attention to that specific question, issue, nation, policy, or event, making it my métier, or at least a point of departure for my graduate studies. At this point in my education as an historian I know that I am facing in the proper direction. With guidance and meticulous work my path will appear in front of me.
Unrelenting Change
The title of this blog is paraphrased from historian Eric Foner. I can't remember what book I read it in. The main point that he was making is that change is inevitable, it is in fact the only constant, and any historian who fails to acknowledge that is basically delusional. And I believe it!
This blog is my experiment in keeping a chronicle of what I learn and do during my two years of graduate school. I will be studying history at Ohio University, majoring in US Foreign Relations, minoring (probably) in Latin American History, working towards an MA. The idea is that what I learn, my readers will learn also, sort of.
I am going to try to use somewhat sophisticated, if not erudite, language. At the same time, since I want people to actually read this, I will try to make it entertaining. I will also try to find an appropriate way to inject my moral and political opinions about what I do, without making this a soapbox. Maybe what I learn in the next two years will shift my ideologies a little. I could hardly consider myself an intellectual if I didn't allow for that possibility. That being said, I don't want to turn anyone away with my own opinions, which, based on one's own opinions, could lead to me being labeled as liberal, Marxist, radical, anarchist, moderate, socialist, leftist, communist, reactionary, centrist, anarchist, or 'Merica hater. I don't necessarily consider myself any of those things, but feel free to do so yourself.
This blog is my experiment in keeping a chronicle of what I learn and do during my two years of graduate school. I will be studying history at Ohio University, majoring in US Foreign Relations, minoring (probably) in Latin American History, working towards an MA. The idea is that what I learn, my readers will learn also, sort of.
I am going to try to use somewhat sophisticated, if not erudite, language. At the same time, since I want people to actually read this, I will try to make it entertaining. I will also try to find an appropriate way to inject my moral and political opinions about what I do, without making this a soapbox. Maybe what I learn in the next two years will shift my ideologies a little. I could hardly consider myself an intellectual if I didn't allow for that possibility. That being said, I don't want to turn anyone away with my own opinions, which, based on one's own opinions, could lead to me being labeled as liberal, Marxist, radical, anarchist, moderate, socialist, leftist, communist, reactionary, centrist, anarchist, or 'Merica hater. I don't necessarily consider myself any of those things, but feel free to do so yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)