Maine State Standards

The website for Maine's state social studies curriculum opened up to a page simply stating: "Performance level definitions are developed to describe the quality of a students responses on the Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) in relation to the standards for achieving Maine's Learning Results. These definitions will provide language for use in standard setting and reporting." I had to dig through the website, mostly with links encouraging kids to take the MHSA SAT, to try to find any social studies framework for standards. I finally found the 5 page PDF for "Major Enduring Themes in Social Studies" after much searching. This document is incredibly different from Michigan's extensive layout for social studies curriculum. The standards were laid out in options as a whole, not directed for specific grades, and were unbelievably general. One of their options, specifically Option 2 CSSAP, breaks down civics, economics, geography, and history with 4-5 additional notes below each. It does not direct any exact topics or events to follow, rather for example in history, it says "comparative history of major developments". This is very different when you look at Michigan's very specific outlines for each era or event in history, directing us to make sure we hit on specific points.

Being a future educator this made me think how we are often mad at the restrictions that the state has laid out for our curriculum, often limiting our ability to make genuine lesson plans. Looking at Maine's much more simplistic lay out though I'm not sure which would be worse. Some outline, or almost rubric you could say, helps keep you on the right track towards achieving an ultimate goal. How do they know what their students will be tested on? How do they keep somewhat of a unification in the Social Studies department in the curriculum among different teacher's classrooms? Maybe this is discussed further, but in this document I saw very little specifics about anything really.

"Time had no meaning, life had no meaning"- FUBAR

Only having watched a small part of Burn's film I can only speculate how wonderful the rest of it would be. This film is exactly what we idealize for connecting to the public about history utilizing local stories, photographs, streaming footage, letters and personal accounts to really connect to the audience. The veterans interviewed are brave enough to discuss these very personal experiences, discuss heroic feats on their part, and are presented as unbelievably strong.

Burns seems to support the accounts with photographs and video footage, which probably are dominantly from that particular time or event. But he also probably used a lot of general footage or photographs of soldiers, fighting, and the warfare that may not have necessarily been from that particular discussed event or time period; but the truth is who would know other than him and who captured the photography?

This film is different in that you aren’t seeing a bunch of academic historians’ opinions or knowledge of WWII, some never even soldiers themselves. Rather you hear firsthand accounts from veterans, letters, video, photographs, and journals right from the heart of the conflict. I really enjoyed the film, even though it discussed some of the more viewed "failures" from the war, it was compelling and amazing.

History Channel

For our investigation into shows on the history channel, I decided to browse my options last night. Unfortunately on the website guide, the only shows that were on while I was home from school/work were Modern Monsters, Ice Road Truckers, Axe Men, and Ganglands. Don't get me wrong, they are all shows I really do love for entertainment purposes, but did not fit the criteria for what we needed as a historical show. The History Channel's agenda for placing shows like Ice Road Truckers and Ganglands on at times when people are most likely home proves their targeted audience. Meanwhile shows that have more historical content are placed late at night or early in the morning, where they are less likely viewed by the every day person.

I chose to watch one of the shows online Ancient Discoveries: Lost Science of the Bible, and it was incredibly fascinating. The show followed some of the controversies around the stories in the Bible and whether the amazing details in the Bible could be true. Science was utilized to supplement the claims that the stories like the Tower of Babel and David and Goliath. I immediately found this interesting because speculation around the Bible is so common, whether people are debating the events, people, or the possible hidden messages within in. It is incredible that they are taking stories from the Bible and proving them with scientific evidence and tests. Although the Bible has been debated in its historical accuracy by some, these events and stories could not be denied with scientific evidence.

The purpose of an episode like this was to take stories documented from ancient times and prove their claims with scientific proof of its possbility. Granted this wasn't a special on WWII or The Civil Rights Movement, I still respect the historical content in the Bible and other ancient texts.

A trip down heritage lane...

While reading through “The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History” by David Lowenthal I found myself thinking about the sense of belonging we so desperately seek as human beings, which is only natural. Heritage plays a key role in that belonging and knowing where you came from; even as early on as middle schools (and sometimes elementary school) kids are doing heritage projects or family trees. It has a similar, funny parallel to how so many argue about history that you “need to know where you came from to know where you’re going”. Lowenthal points out that the search for legacy and heritage can uproot “unwelcomed legacies” that your ancestors have left behind, which may be associations you want to avoid. The point is your past doesn’t set the path for you; America is founded on the values of climbing up the social strata and succeeding beyond your socioeconomic status to great heights. What heritage is important in is that it can set a sense of morals, beliefs, a sense of belonging, and taking responsibility for what we do in our lifetime. Throughout history, heritage has played a crucial role in government, whether passing on leadership, and in lineage has also been important in certain inheritances. Right now, as both members of our family and citizens of this society, we are leaving behind legacies about our culture and the world around us that people will be looking back on some day; much like we do with, say the 1950s “Golden Age”. I wonder what our life will be summed up as in a catch phrase?

Adventures with Cavalcade of America

Having already had a brief overview from Ian Tyrell's book about Cavalcade for America, I thought I was fairly prepared for what I thought it would be like. Surprisingly it was a light hearted comedy in a play form with musical background additions, following a storyline of characters the listeners could easily relate to. Tyrell compares it to the other radio show Headlines saying, “Cavalcade sought to use the past to legitimate the present, whereas the Headlines sought to use the present as a window to stimulate critical interest in the past” (105). Who is right? Which message is better? Either way, it was history connecting to the public in a medium that was all the rage at that time, and creating an audience for the past and current events.
I chose the Cavalcade of America clip called “The Gals They Left Behind” assuming it would be about the life of women during the war, and I truly respect women a lot during that time in history. During WWII women stepped up to incredible feats while their husbands, sons, brothers, or boyfriends were over fighting the war, and this episode followed two women through both their struggles and ridiculous stories of success. This particular episode of Cavalcade of America followed Taffy and Jo, whose sweethearts were both in the war, and they were trying to survive together. Jo inherits a farm from her aunt that is a total dump, and the duration of the play follows them while they attempt become farmers. Despite criticism from neighboring characters, they were successful until the winter time hits. Jo relays the stories to Bill, her sweetheart, in letters being sent to him. Jo and Taffy confide in one another of the loneliness they feel from being alone and the struggles of running a farm. This is something that listeners who experienced the emptiness and hardship of making it on their own can certainly relate to, obviously mostly women. This story seems to emphasize though that although they are getting through it together, the ultimate focus is their sweethearts and how much they depend on them to survive. This Cavalcade episode seemed to promote support of the war effort and women's role while men were gone.
I think Cavalcade of American was a great way for historians to communicate with the general public, making past and present events interesting, sometimes comical, and character based that the audience could try to relate to. The drawbacks of using media like this to present history in an often fictional story line could sometimes cloud certain facts or present it from only one perspective.


(http://www.archive.org/details/CavalcadeOfAmerica Clip: 44-08-14_CavalcadeOfAmerica_396_TheGalsTheyLeftBehind.mp3 )

Can history "come alive"?

It was teased today in class that people often use that metaphor to describe their ability to present history in a vibrant and enthusiastic way. History obviously can't literally come alive, since much of history is done or the people are long gone, but rather it is making the content relevant and meaningful. This is a phrase we use in education a lot, because we are striving to make connections to students to history so it can become 'alive'. Thoughts?

“Honest history must often be unsettling, even jarring”- Brinkley

a) First, do you agree with Tyrrell and, to some extent Brinkley’s, observation that something is “wrong” with history?

I can’t agree fully that something is “wrong” with history, rather misunderstood by varying accounts, perspectives, in context, and bias with source taken from. Tyrrell’s observation that something is “wrong” with history is more around the idea of perspectives. What’s “wrong” with history is in the eyes of the beholder, whether they support or are against certain people, events, beliefs, countries, etc, will influence their opinion on how things of the past have happened. The problem is that the academic world is becoming powerless for the main source of information, leading the way for others to fill in the cracks. Information being fed from the New York Times editor versus someone in the academic historical community could produce two completely different pieces of text on the same event or person. And who will be more likely read by the everyday person?

Brinkley tends to put the ball into the historians and scholars’ court, saying that it is their duty to fulfill in making their academic historical works accessible; otherwise it will be left to others “less qualified” to reach the general public. We discussed this in class on our first day when asked where the general public gets their history from, that being the History Channel, movies, etc, and not from scholars or academic texts. What’s wrong with history is making it out of the reach of every day citizens to understand and relate to. Brinkley urges the history scholars and academic writers to find their links to the public to fuel the spread of knowledge.

Specialization has also been challenged and debated as a problem, arguing its effectiveness and use in the light of historical information. The “waves” of specialization have changed around social progresses, events, leaders, and around the context of the time period it was in, and it has been argued that “For the first time historians took seriously the possibility that academics’ specializations might be incompatible, not bricks that could be connected in a common edifice as Jameson had hoped” (33). I feel that specialization can become a problem when it is focused on to deep and the reader must go beyond to find multiple perspectives to understand the event, person, or examined issue.

High school text books are generally written from a white American male perspective, leaving events to be portrayed in the bright light of “we do no wrong” as Americans, and our history is written as “settled” and not “invaded” from the Native Americans. Primary sources are presented as inserted boxes that are often skipped over when reading is assigned. The same can be seen throughout accounts of history, presented in whatever light the author believes or supports. The Nazi’s aren’t going to paint the history of World War II and the Holocaust in the same way that a Jew would at that time; that is obvious. So when reading texts, historical accounts, scholar work, articles, etc, the reader needs to be aware of bias and opinions of the author itself.

b) Second, do you see yourself as being the kind of audience that the historians in the readings are trying to reach? Outside of academic settings, are the works of academic scholars your first resort in trying to understand the past?

Much of college undergrad texts and required readings come from primary sources and academic sources, so I would say that whether we are the kind of audience they intended or not, we do make up a big majority. Outside of working on a research paper or something for class, works of academic scholars are not always my first resort. I find they aren’t always easily understood, layered with a lot of bias and personal information, and not a quick reference.

Introduction

Introduction:

My name is Christina Larsen and I am a senior at MSU going in to secondary education, with a history major, geography minor and completing the Rx Endorsement. I will graduate in December 2010, which is an extra semester than originally planned, but I will be able to complete the Rx Endorsement and work for a semester before starting student teaching in August 2011. I have wanted to be a teacher since 7th grade when I had a teacher who sparked my fascination in history. Throughout MSU I have had opportunities to be in a variety of classes absorbing history I hadn't been exposed to previously. I want to make my students interested in history, since many kids who I have talked to absolutely hate history. In utilizing a variety of perspectives, sources, teaching strategies, and projecting my enthusiasm in history will hopefully help in achieving this goal. This HST 480 class is so far very unique to any other history class I have taken at MSU and I'm excited to get more hands on in our community with history.



Our first assignment was to visit a historic site near us and analyze using the perspective of a visitor versus a historian. Since I was already in East Lansing for work when we received the email with the assignment, I chose a site locally to investigate. I chose Mt. Hope Cemetery in East Lansing MI, but unfortunately I was unable to take any pictures because I broke my digital camera recently (which I am very prone to). Upon entering the cemetery you see the archway entrance that opens into the large expanse of land dotted with tombstones. Visiting any cemetery is always difficult for me, particularly when I see grieving families while I am there, because I feel as though I am intruding on their very personal experience.

What questions would any visitor ask about this site?

- What's the oldest tombstone here?

- Is there anyone famous buried here?

- Are any of my ancestors buried here?

What questions would a historian ask about this site?

- When was the cemetery established?

- How many plots are here?

- Why was this cemetery built here?

- What was this land before it was a cemetery?


Any questions or comments are very welcome :)