PLagues and People

The work of William McNeill “Plague and People” is an attempt to explain the past through a sort of biological means. It is in some way an explanation of historical event by taking a look at the influence of nature. McNeill is a naturalist and that he considers the environment as a big factor in history. It’s a naturalistic approach to the study of history. If we examine closely the work of McNeill, we might be able to get the idea that human beings and the history of humans is in a way related to the environment and that we play a role. There is a sort of ecological niche that we are to find. Humans play a link between environments. There is a continuum or a series of things that humans should play his part so as not to break the series. From this, we will find that even the littlest of the organisms like the parasites play a role. These parasites that live off another organism are related to humans. This relationship is a balance between the micro and macro parasitism that humans tend to work in between. Let us take a look between the so-called macro and micro parasitism


Micro parasitism according to McNeill (1998) is an organism that is a parasite on us. This might include organisms that are inside us feeding on the nutrients that we are taking in. Macro parasitism on the other hand is when we talk about parasitism in a very large scale. In history, it might mean the physical or feeding in some way like abuse of authority to gain more. That is parasitism. But there should always be an equilibrium or balance. Parasites who have had enough that the host is destroyed or can no longer provide would mean destruction or even death. The parasite then will die off. McNeill means this in history to be that sort of abuse that can destroy a society. This became an epidemic because it came to a point that the host is destroyed. On the other hand, if it is just stable we call it endemic.


Humans can be considered the greatest parasite. We have the knowledge that we can think of ways to destroy and hunt even the fiercest creatures that thrive on earth. From the beginning man has been a threat to every species that ever existed. Even to their kind. Man has been ruling since the beginning and it has destroyed quite a number of species along with it are the parasites that live within those species. But what about those parasites that can live on those that humans need for survival and thus humans took care off? We destroyed a great number of small animals to do farming and in so doing killing some plants and animals that once live in the unplowed land.


The growth of population has a lot to do with trying to balance the ecosystem. There are three things that would result from the growth. First is are diseases because the population expands and there are more hosts; second would be war due to conflicts and third would have to be famine because the society was able to consume too much to the point that the ecosystem can no longer provide nourishment. McNeill sees the relationship between these diseases, famine and war to the society. History has given us quite a number of examples of societies that disintegrated because of disease, famine and war. From these, we can say that a society can likely be affected by whatever is happening to the ecosystem. A certain disease can kill off an entire population. Trade and foreign relations of the ancient times had introduced to a certain place a disease unknowingly. What we learned from this epidemic is that human beings tend to adapt to it and battle it out. The method of quarantine would have to be the simplest way that humans battle out the spread of a disease. The advent of these diseases also caused much attention to religion and some belief. We find mystical religious movements that boast of healing.

What McNeill is trying to say is that if there is a sort of an unbalance in the society, it dies off. It can be due to the relationship between the players of the people of the community or a naturalistic approach to it; something might have happened that human beings were not able to react to it. The advent of the diseases upon a shore may sometime affect the delicate balance. Humans are sometimes caught in the middle of an epidemic that no matter how much we try to console it, we are caught by the fact that it is not in our hands anymore. A disease (viral or bacterial) that kills its victims before they can spread it to others tends to flare up and then die out, like a fire running out of fuel. A more resilient disease would establish an equilibrium, its victims living well beyond infection to further spread the disease. This function of the evolutionary process selects against quick lethality, with the most immediately fatal diseases being the most short-lived. Thus both diseases and populations tend to evolve towards an equilibrium in which the common diseases are non-symptomatic, mild, or manageably chronic. When a population that has been relatively isolated is exposed to new diseases, it has no inborn resistance to the new diseases (the population is "biologically naïve"); this body of people succumbs at a much higher rate, resulting in what is known as a "virgin soil" epidemic.

Civilizations thrive and flourish because of this balance. Some may die off because of parasitism within themselves or as a relationship to other beings. McNeill sees the natural method of things that influence history. I might agree with him. Humans have always been in complete struggle of controlling the environment but there are some things that he just might not be able to over turn. History is indeed a balance between all the factors of the society and there should be a relationship established amongst them.

____________________________________________________________________

Sources:

McNeill, W.H. (1998). Plagues and peoples. New York: Anchor Books.

Staloff, Darren (2000) “The search for a meaningful past,philosophies,theories, and
interpretation of human history”. New York: The Teaching Company

population history. Retrieved October 20, 2008 from http://www.wikipedia.com/population

The Chronicle of EDSA II

The EDSA Revolution of 2001 OR EDSA II, also called by the local media as EDSA II (pronounced as EDSA Dos or EDSA 2) or the Second People Power Revolution, is the common name of the four-day popular revolution that peacefully overthrew former president Estarda from January 17 - 20, 2001. He was succeeded by his then vice president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on Ocotber 04, 2001. Ilocos Sur Governor Chaivt Singson, a longtime friend of Estrada went public with accusations that Estrada, his family and friends received millions of pesos from operations of the illegal numbers game,jeuteng. What follows is a string of protests calling for the resignation of the President Joseph Estrada. Later, on January 20, 2001 Estrada and his family leave Malacañang Palace, smiling and waving to reporters and shaking hands with the remaining members of his Cabinet and other palace employees. He was placed under house arrest and eventually confined to his rest home in Sampaloc, a small village in Tanay, Rizal. The story however can be told in four different manners following Hayden’s White Metahistory and the use of emplotment.

ROMANCE

The story of EDSA 2 is the struggle of the many people who fought for the resignation of President Estrada. These were the 10 senators who tried to fought for it. A The day-to-day trial was covered on live Philippine television and received the highest viewing rating at the time. Another hero would be Clarissa OCampo, an ordinary person who tried to testify against the president and exposed herself to the dangers of assassination and being thrown out of jail for false accusation of the court is not going to side on her. Among the highlights of the trial was the testimony of Clarissa Ocampo, senior vice president of Equitable PCI Bank who testified that she was one foot away from Estrada when he signed the name "Jose Velarde" documents involving a P500 million investment agreement with their bank in February 2000.


TRAGEDY

The story of EDSA 2 is a tragedy. The country faced the greatest battle after the revolution and that is to resolve the conflict that divided the nation. Those who call for the resignation are faced with the challenge of proving that president Estrada is guilty of treason and the other charges against him. On the other hand, the pro-Estrada people marched the streets and held protests against President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The country then faced the tumultuous task of battling the effects of the revolt. What followed is more protest and the economy of the country was affected by it. Though foreign nations, including the United States immediately expressed recognition of the legitimacy of Arroyo's presidency, foreign commentators described the revolt as "a defeat for due process of law. The Pro-Estrada blamed EDSA 2 of having "inflicted a dent on Philippine democracy".


COMEDY


Former president Joseph Estrada has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of plunder by the Sandiganbayan and has been sentenced to life imprisonment. At the same time, the anti-graft court ordered the freezing of Estrada’s accounts estimated at $87 million. Fears that a guilty verdict could trigger widespread street protests and possible riots in Manila seemed misplaced. Pro-Estrada activists staged scattered low-key demonstrations in the city of 12 million people but all were peaceful. The crowd was far smaller than the thousands predicted and riot police sent to guard against them snacked and chatted. Some sat down, their shields by their sides. But after being in detention for six and a half years, Estrada who is now 70, was granted an executive pardon by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on Thursday, just a month after he was sentenced to life imprisonment for abuse of power and plunder. In her decree, the president said Estrada was freed under the current administration's policy of releasing prisoners who had reached the age of 70. The six and a half years that he had already spent in detention during the trial was also taken into consideration.



SATIRE


The EDSA revolution is satirical because the heroes failed in their futile attempt to achieve what the preceding era failed according to their criteria. The country at the moment is facing the hardest times. We are faced with economic crisis that no matter what policy the hero, the current president, is doing it proved to not work that much. Estrada was charged with perjury but the country has been on the list of the most corrupt nations in Asia even after the so-called corrupt officials were gone. The country has been trying hard enough to move away from cronyism and the claws of dictatorship but we have our officials who might as well represent the traditional politicians of the past. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo failed in her attempt to win over the masses which had supported Estrada’s administration.

__________________________________________________________________________

Sources:

White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe. B

altimore: John Hopkins University.

EDSA Revolution. Retrieved October 20, 2008 from http://www.wikipedia.com/edsa 2

Hayden White and Metahistory

Hayden White and his take on Post- Structuralism is an attempt to explain the events of the past and that there is a nature to reality. In his work Metahistory, White was able to present history in different facets. There is historical thought for an event and that there is also a way to present it depending on the historians. A historical work is a verbal presentation of events. There is a sense a sort of poetic approach to it.

A historical work is of course poetically constructed. We reconstruct the past in a way that is understandable to the audience. Thus, we drop of some lines that are not as important as the event itself. It is poetic because we are in a way trying to make history as interesting as we want it to be. For White, every historical work takes the form of a narrative prose and I cannot oppose it. History is indeed, a narrative prose essay. To present history, we take a look at unprocessed history. We have documents, evidences, and all those that have something to do with the historical field that we are interested in. We may include in our study of the past, historical accounts. By carefully merging these issues – historical accounts, records and evidences – a historian can present it to an audience. By this, we mean the reader of the work. It will in some way affect the historical writing because the audience should be taken in to consideration. By this, we mean readership. So, history is not just the retelling of the past, it has to deal with a lot of elements and a lot of features. And that is not an easy task. Hayden White in his Metahistory was able to explain the more important elements on history writing. He mentioned five important elements and these are chronicle, story, motive emplotment, and motive argument and motive ideological implication.

The first element being the chronicle is the retelling of an event in a chronological manner. The second element of course is the story. In history, it is the event. Historical writing centers on an issue or an event and that is the story. The retelling will require a beginning, middle and an end. In between there are words such as first, then, finally, ultimately and those transition words differentiate a chronicle from a story. A chronicle is just a chronological timeline while history is different because it takes in a chronicle, put a motif and initiate the events. White mentioned four different modes of emplotment to be the third element. By emplotment, we mean of the manner that a certain story is presented. We have an event and it has a particular undertone or a mood. White mentions four emplotments and these are – romance, satire, comedy and tragedy. The first mode is romance. It is a straight forward narrative of a hero who won over adversity. This is the emplotment that tells us of a hero and how he was able to beat all the odds. It is a sense of spectacle of how a certain person became victorious after all those struggles and in the end he triumphed over all these. The second mode is tragedy satire which is the opposite of romance because it is the evil that has prevailed. This mode is an account of an event that has caused evil in some way. Then we have the third mode and that is comedy. By comedy, we have the adversities and the struggles but in the end, the conflict is resolved by reconciliation. It’s a happy ending. That no matter how painful the struggles have been, the end is always on a positive note. Now, the fourth mode is what we call as satire. Here, we mean that the hero or the antagonist for that matter faced struggles and fail. This shows that in history, the hero is not always victorious. There are struggles that a hero is not able to be victorious. It is tragic.

White’s four mode of emplotment is in itself already a great explanation. Besides these four emplotment, he was able to employ the so-called modes of arguments. These are explanatory techniques and also got four variations – formist, organicist, mechanist, contextualism.

Now, I will turn to the discussion of the four modes of argument. Formism has something to do with form. It is an idiographic take on the historian because it tells of an event and what makes it particularly interesting or different. There is always in some way a particular uniqueness to an event. Organicist on the other hand tells us of events that are probably separate but is seen as unified whole. Some events may be united in one or more of principles. We have the mechanist view that talks about the mechanisms or the elements that has to do with an event. The contextualist view on the other hand is about the context of the event or the contextual background of the event that is being examined.

White also employs the so-called motive of ideological implications in history writing. It is a reflection of ho an event affects life, an individual or even the civilization. By these we mean four ideologies – conservative that tells us that history evolves; liberal that is explains that a change in law or government would mean a change in the present state of affairs; radical that explains that only radical means can effect a change; and anarchist saying that the state is corrupt that a new community must pave the way for change.

To sum up, I see White as a great historian, a great narrative writer and a great philosopher. It is not easy to employ those means in historical writing but he was able to explain and note those mechanisms. As a historian, we can extract one event and make use of the four types of emplotment. There is a lot of method in the retelling of history but as always there is a reason behind the historians mind. His belief may quite be a form of an art but history is more than just writing but it includes explaining and trying to effect change. Over all his work is interesting with all its art and the method that he presented history. He was able to note some of the philosophers view and make an analysis of their works. I believe in so far as presentation and analysis is concerned, White was able to present history as a fun and light. I agree with him and I believe that White did a great job.

__________________________________________________________________

Sources:

Staloff, Darren (2000) “The search for a meaningful past,philosophies,theories, and
interpretation of human history”. New York: The Teaching Company.

White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe.

Baltimore: John Hopkins University.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

According to Carl Hempel history can be explained through a general law just like the sciences. A general law is a universal conditional proposition. It says something absolutely without exception and that always takes the form of a condition. If we get this first condition we will get that afterwards. There is a connection of cause and event through that conditional nexus. It produces an effect because of the conditions.

Hempel got a simple law that can be read as A Set of events such as C1, C2 and C3 can cause an event known as E. To further understand what Hempel means I would like to use the French Revolution as an example. The French Revolution (1789–1799) was a period of political and social upheaval in the history of FRance. Then, it is our E.


What causes the E? What is the cause of the French Revolution which are the C’s? C1 would have to be political factor and that is the change in structure of the government. Politics controls the entire society at the time and a change in the structure of the government from absolute monarchy to some other form caused widespread division. C2 would have to be the economic factor including the growth of population causing widespread famine. C3 would have to be the social factors such as the struggle of the masses causing some sort of social upheaval. What are the laws that will prove that our C1, C2 and C3 will cause the E?


In politics, whenever there is a change in government what follows are social upheavals. Our C1 had the law that “evils of society arose from defective social institutions, and that there was more than enough wealth for all, if it were only distributed equally” (Malthusian Theory) which means that the government of the time being a monarchy was not able to provide for the needs of the people and thus the constituents called for another form of government. As always, the conflicting interest of those that are supporting the present state will go head to head with the ideas of the new system. During the revolution, the supporters of absolute monarchy were battling against the Enlightenment and its ideas of nationalism and equality.


The C2 or economic factors as always is one of the most influential events to cause a revolution. According to Adam Smith “increase of population among the poorer classes is checked by scarcity of subsistence.” The poor people not being able to suffice for their needs would resort to other means and cause social upheaval. Malthus also stressed that “population if unchecked grows at a proportionate rate (1..2..4..8..16..32) while food only increases at an arithmetic rate (1..2..3..4..5..6).” The population rate at the time was increasing and the people were not able to produce food supply to provide for their increasing number.


The C3 or the social factors are the struggle of the masses. According to Karl Marx, there is always a struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie that will caused a certain kind of movement. During the French revolution, the masses held up arms to battle the nobles. The Marxists view the entire period (there were numerous revolts led by different groups) as one inseparable and inevitable process that represented the decisive stage between feudalism and capitalism . The Revolution ultimately occurred because of a growing discrepancy between public pretension and economic reality. In the Old Regime, land ownership was the basis of privileged position the nobility enjoyed. This arrangement became increasingly obsolete because of the rise of commerce gave rise to the numbers and economic power of the bourgeoisie. The aristocratic landed order still retained social predominance despite economic eclipse. Although still dominant in virtually every aspect of society, the nobles resented the growing influence of the bourgeoisie and wished to stifle the lower classes


I will agree with Hempel but I also would like to stress that not all laws will apply to a particular event because history is always is unique in some way. It is not always the same. It is changing and we cannot predict the outcome of an event by using a law. It is not like science where one leads to another. History is not.

____________________________________________________________________

Sources:

Staloff, D. (1995). The search for a meaningful past philosophies,
theories and interpretations. NY: The Teaching Co.

Hempel, C.G. (1942). The function of general laws in history. In
The Journal of Philosophy, 39, 35-48.

French Revolution. Retrieved October 20, 2008 from
http://www.wikipedia.com/ French revolution


French Revolution. Retrieved October 20, 2008 from http://www.conservapedia.com/French_Revolution


Theories of population. Retrieved Oct 20, 2008 from.http://www.newadvent.org/theories


Malthus. Retrieved October 20, 2008 from http://www.wikipedia.com/malthus

THE SECOND WORLD WAR

The Second World War as it came to be known later on was the largest war in history fought between September 1939 and September 1945. The war was not a single unitary conflict blown out of proportions in one single event. It was n reality a number of different wars gradually drawing the world’s major powers between 1939 and 1941.How did the closing of World War I set the stage for World War II?


Germany took a major role in World War I. After the war, the nation is still a powerhouse and still got some grievances towards its imperial rivals in the region. Since, Germany was not physically occupied in the First World War it did bear the same burden as the other nations. Its infrastructure remained intact because no army occupied German soil. What followed was a country that is gradually gaining power and posing a threat to the European balance of power. But it had lost considerably a large tract of land to Lithuania, France and Poland, notable losses includes the Polish Corridor and the Danzig granted to Poland after the Versailles Treaty of 1919. The result of this loss of land was population relocation, bitterness among Germans, and also difficult relations with those in these neighboring countries.


The German demand for the return of Danzig and part of the Polish ‘corridor but Poland refused to agree to their demands. On September 1, 1939 overwhelming German forces launched the Polish campaign and invaded Poland. Britain and France had guaranteed Polish sovereignty, and in honor of that pledge first demanded that German forces withdraw but the diplomatic approach did not work and so the 3rd of September they declared war against Germany. The immediate cause of World War II would have to be the invasion of Poland by German forces. Britain and France had previously warned that they would honor their alliances to Poland and issued an ultimatum to Germany: withdraw or war would be declared. Germany declined, and World War II began.


This global conflict split the majority of the world's nation into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis Powers. The underlying dominance of these major powers caused the entire world to take sides. The Axis Powers were the three main countries of the Second World War: Italy, Germany, and Japan. A number of other nations also briefly joined the Axis Powers. Together, these powers managed to take control of other nations. A number of nations joined the Axis, often under pressure, including Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Thailand, and Yugoslavia. The Axis Powers also bolstered themselves with an assortment of puppet states: Imperial Japan in particular had a number of puppet states which it used to control much of Southeast Asia, including governments in Burma, Vietnam, and Inner Mongolia. Iraq and Finland both cooperated with the Axis Powers, offering resources, land, and expertise, although they signed no formal agreements. In opposition to the Axis Powers were the Allied Powers: the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union, assisted by a number of other nations including Australia, Canada, Norway, Belgium, and a range of South American countries. What follows are a string of wars that had cost millions of lives and properties.

Some of the most significant wars would include the Russo-Finish War when Finland was defeated by Russia; the Blitzkrieg invasion of France when the German forces swept through Netherlands and Belgium; the Battle of Britain and the North African campaign where the Allies defeated Italian and German forces, the Battle of Stalingrad and the Normandy Campaigns when the Allies steadily advance winnings over the Axis Powers. The pattern of the war resembled a tidal flow. Until the end of 1942 the armies and navies of the Axis continually extended their power through Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. Toward the end of 1942 the tide turned. The Allies won decisive victories in each theater. The World was enraged by the war where battles happen at sea, on land and even on air. By the end of 1944, Allied victory in Europe began to seem all but imminent, but a number of obstacles still stood in the way. Hitler's scientists had developed the V2 rocket, precursor of modern missiles, and Germany fired several of them against England. The Allies, meanwhile, relentlessly bombed German cities, bringing the Reich to its knees. The Battle of the Bulge in the Ardennes forest in December 1944 was the later major Axis offensive in Europe. The Axis Powers were losing.

With the Soviets surrounding Berlin, Hitler on April 30, 1945, committed suicide in his bunker with his mistress, Eva Braun. Two days earlier, Mussolini and his mistress, captured by Italian resistance fighters, had been shot. The Germans surrendered to the Allies on May 7. The Allied declared victory over Europe. In the Pacific, the surrender of Japan is inevitable. Instead of invading Japan, The Americans unleashed the result of the Manhattan project and had dropped the first atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima and the second one on Nagasaki. The nation surrendered and so the Second World War ended with the defeat of all of the belligerent Axis Powers.

___________________________________________________________________________

SOURCES:

World War II. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from http://www.wiki.answers.com

World War II. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from http://www.history.com/minisites/worldwartwo -

Axis Powers. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/World_War_II

Allied Powers. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from http://www.wiki.answers.com

.

THE BETRAYAL OF BENEDICT ARNOLD

On September 21, 1870, the British warship Vulture slipped up the Hudson River taking a British major to a secret meeting that could change the entire course of the American Revolution. It was moonless and windy as the sloop anchored on the west bank near Stony Point, and a boat set out from the shore. A few minutes later, John Andre – adjutant general to Sir Henry Clinton, one of the British Commanders rowed ashore.

As soon as he reached the land, he was taken to a secret spot surrounded by fir trees. There he met General Benedict Arnold, the commander of the vital riverside post of WestPoint. Andre came ashore in full uniform near Havestraw. The two officers had already exchanged letters in which Benedict promised to surrender WestPoint if the money and terms were right.

At the time the 39-year-old Arnold was one of General George Washington’s most trusted men. It was 1870 and he had just taken up his new post as the Commander of WestPoint. By the time, he was already siding with the British and had been having secret correspondence with Sir Henry Clinton. Why would a person of such a stature side with the British during the time of the revolution? What brought Arnold to deny his being a patriot and became a traitor? It may probably be because of the past experiences he had.

Born on January 14, 1741 in Norwich, Connecticut, he had been a rebellious boy, and at the age of 14 had run away from home to fight in the French Indian War. After serving some time, he deserted and made his own way back to the wilderness. The army forgave him because of his youth. In 1775, on the outbreak of the revolution, he joined the colonial forces. He became a part of the “Green Mountain Boys” that took over Fort Ticonderoga in New York. Later, he took part in the unsuccessful siege of Maine and Quebec. His leg was broken in the battle but his courage gained him promotion as brigadier general.

After this brilliant start to his military career, his fortune went in to a nose dive. In 1777 – after being acquitted of charges of misconduct in Canada – he was disappointed when the Congress appointed five new major generals, all younger than himself. However, he came back victorious when he was credited for the capture of the invading army of General John Burgoyne of the British army. In 1778, Washington gave him command of the city of Philadelphia.

His career sea sawed once more after his marriage with his second wife Peggy Shippen, a beautiful society girl. He lived extravagantly and found himself in debt. He probably thought that he will receive credit for his military exploits and so he lived a lavish life. But things went different. Instead, he soon fell out of the state executive council which brought eight charges against him – including the use of military personnel as personal servants.

The charges were presented to Congress in 1779. Four of them were thrown out. Arnold demanded a speedy trial to deal with the remaining counts but the court martial did not convene until December. He probably thought that the delays were wrong and that it brought injustice to a man who has served the military and had been very good at it. Always a sensitive person, he probably saw this as a motive to side with the British. So he did enter a secret deal with them.

He was acquitted of all his wrong doings but General Washington reprimanded him that might as well be the reason for him to decide on his next move. He asked to be given command of the West Point and General Washington agreed. He took up his post in August 1780.

Having been in debt and having had several blows on his military career, he probably had the resentment about serving the Americans. Thus, when he was approached by the British, Arnold was already receptive to abandoning the patriot cause. He demanded £20,000 and a commission as a major general in the British army for giving up West Point.

And so on, September 21, Major Andre and Arnold met to finalize the agreement. Unfortunately for them, the Vulture then came under American fire and headed away, leaving Andre stranded. Andre donned civilian clothes as Arnold may have wanted it. Arnold was however to wrought up considering that the gesture turned Andre into a spy and would mean execution of caught. Andre headed down the Hudson with a safe conduct pass from Arnold but he was captured by three militiamen, who turned him over to the commander at North Castle. He was arrested as a spy carrying incriminating papers. When Arnold was notified at breakfast on April 23 that a British officer had been captured, he fled by boat to the Vulture. Andre was later hung as a spy on October 2, 1780. On the other hand, Arnold was given his commission and received ₤6315. King George III made him a consultant for American affairs that he probably would have wanted ever since. Most of his remaining years were spent in the West Indies until his death in London in June 1801.

(R.G. Collingwood was then correct about using the a priori imagination to recreate history. In the writing of history the historian has to narrate a story by using common sense and the available evidence.)

____________________________________________________________________

Sources:

Benedict Arnold. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from http://www.multied.com/Revolt/arnold.html

John Burgoyne. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/BURGOYNE.

Peggy shippen. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from http://www.answers.com/main/peggy

Collingwood, R. G. (1946). The idea of history. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Pp. 205-334 .

Hyde, Montgomery (1973). Benedict Arnold. In Crimes and Punishments (Vol. 1, pp. 135-136)

USA: BPC Publishing Limited.

The problems of writing Contemporary American History

To write history is not an easy task. But I was able to meet the challenge upon doing my first historical writing of the United States. The first one was quite a great task for I have in my hands, 50 documents about the war, the personalities, speeches of the presidents, acts and treaties and the like. Those are primary sources. Raw and unedited primary sources. The question that I immediately have to answer was how to recreate the past using the documents. What followed was a massive amount of work but I was able to make it.


The next time I was asked to write about American History from 1950 to 2000 was quite a challenge. I belong to the contemporary times and have known the History of the United States for some time now but how to rewrite it again is definitely not an easy task. It got harder knowing that I am allowed to do research and background reading.


The more that I read, the more I got consumed of the articles and the facts and the more that I got confused of what to include. But I remained committed to my task. The historical perspective that I have in mind was not sufficient to put into paper. I did background reading and much to much dismay, I got brain freeze. I was bent on to writing which are the more important and which are not. It is a wrong idea to write history thinking of what I am going to include. In a way, I became biased. So what happened was that I am not able to capture the experiences of the nation that I am writing. Throughout my writing, I tried to focus on including facts but it falls short of my expectations. I was constrained by circumstances that made me think that I am doing a term paper and not a historical writing.


Accomplishing the goal of recreating the past became a tedious task for me. I need s strong chronology and a strong conceptual framework but my writing shows that I failed in so doing, but I am able to include the major themes that I believe is important in my writing. The themes about the presidents although short have given me a sense of a pattern in connecting bits and pieces of history. Each period of American history is signaled by the start of a new presidency. Each of the presidents has shown good and bad leadership that had caused a change in the course of American history.


To put a face in the historical experience of the United States is quite hard. Taken together, it is an experience worth writing. Good narrative is primarily a product of good sentences and a good coherence. On my part, I would say that this is one of my strongest points. The revising process is also an opportunity for me to incorporate my own writing style. But as far as I know, I wasn’t able to resolve the bitter issue that confronts new historian and that is to be biased upon the selection of what is history and what is not.


Being aware of some contemporary events, I was faced with the question of what recurrent events should be included in my work. But I tried to be fair. It will depend largely on how the audience will view my writing. Historian and future historians might also analyze the case of writing history from the context of influence. I believe that writing history is about making choices. Nowhere is this process more difficult than to write about recent events. We are bombarded with headlines and today’s headlines can become tomorrow’s history.


To write about recent events require courage and the all encompassing question of “Is my writing worth the time?” when the newspapers are all writing about it. But as far as I can tell, I was able to connect events and able to evaluate the documents. It is a difficult process that I am able to achieve.