Saturday, November 15, 2008
The final paper must begin with a specific comparison/ contrast of a single event or item or person from the movie "Amistad" put in contrast to the same event, item, or person from the academic historians' vantage point. Show how Spielberg changed what they or at least some historians claimed to be the "truth."
Then try to determine why the historians or Spielberg believe what they believe. Are the historians right? How can anyone determine? Check the footnotes. See what basis they have for their claims. Interrogate them.
If truth cannot be established, then both the historians and Spielberg need to justify their claims. Why do each present history as they do? Explore the reasons, or possible reasons. What agenda might be in play?
Finally, you have to step in and tell me what you would have done. How should history be presented? Should history have a social or political agenda? Can it avoid one? Should it stick to "just the facts"? Who is right? SHow that you understand both sides of this debate before explaining your own position.
In this part, you have to present both sides of the debate, the argument for history as truth and fact, and the argument for history as a socially constructed story with an agenda.
You have to put yourself in these writers’ shows and explain how you would have handled this material and why. And then you have to defend your choice.
In your defense of your choice, you here have to include an analysis of your own subjectivity. Through what lens do you see the world? And how do those lens shape your perception and decision? I am, ultimately, looking for evidence of your wrestling with the dilemma of subjectivity in history, not to dismiss either side of this debate as naive, for both have good points, but to show you have a grasp of the debate and some sort of an informed stance of your own.
(0) comments
Then try to determine why the historians or Spielberg believe what they believe. Are the historians right? How can anyone determine? Check the footnotes. See what basis they have for their claims. Interrogate them.
If truth cannot be established, then both the historians and Spielberg need to justify their claims. Why do each present history as they do? Explore the reasons, or possible reasons. What agenda might be in play?
Finally, you have to step in and tell me what you would have done. How should history be presented? Should history have a social or political agenda? Can it avoid one? Should it stick to "just the facts"? Who is right? SHow that you understand both sides of this debate before explaining your own position.
In this part, you have to present both sides of the debate, the argument for history as truth and fact, and the argument for history as a socially constructed story with an agenda.
You have to put yourself in these writers’ shows and explain how you would have handled this material and why. And then you have to defend your choice.
In your defense of your choice, you here have to include an analysis of your own subjectivity. Through what lens do you see the world? And how do those lens shape your perception and decision? I am, ultimately, looking for evidence of your wrestling with the dilemma of subjectivity in history, not to dismiss either side of this debate as naive, for both have good points, but to show you have a grasp of the debate and some sort of an informed stance of your own.
As with any paper, in the end, tie in your conclusion to the opening specific scene you started with.
Have Fun. More cyber data will be forth coming.
