You Know You Are a History Major When.....

I ain't afraid of no ghosts?

2009-10-27T21:52:00.004-04:00

I definitely have to post a longer reflection on my own post-graduate life in Chestertown, but for now, here's an anecdote from the life of Ten Page:

Sunday morning, I came back into my apartment from the laundry room, and I happened to notice that my VCR said 7:45. Not a big deal you might say. Except for the fact that I got up at 8 on Sunday morning, and it was almost 9am at this point. Somehow my VCR clock managed to set itself back an hour. We didn't have a power outage or surge, all of the other clocks in the house read the correct time, and I haven't even had the VCR on in a week, much less changed the time my self.

Spooky...

One Lovely Night of History

2009-08-16T12:08:00.002-04:00

Last night, at a small, stunningly beautiful, outdoor theater in Spring Green, WI, I was powerfully reminded why I love both history and theatre (and Shakespeare as a vessel of both these things) during a performance of King Henry V. I know that so much of the history we learn is made up of kings and countries, but I saw one of those history-making kings weep over the body of a young boy, slain by fleeing French in contempt of the rules of war. Even kings are mere men, and it is of the deeds of all men that history is made.

Now, the history nerd in me was astir at the early discussion of the intricacies of Salic law, which I understood all too well, and the common discussion of Henry's royal lineage, with as twisted branches as most royal family trees, intermingled by intermarriage. Before the battle of Agincourt began and the English despaired of returning alive across the channel, I knew how the powerful English long bow would confound French expectations of an easy victory. While Henry wooed Katherine with the words of a soldier and a king, I knew the tragedy that would leave his son fatherless at a tender age, and how the bitter Dauphin would regain his throne with the help of a French peasant girl named Jean d'Arc. But these are the mere cold facts of history, the basic substance of the past, but wrought from them on that empty stage was a story epic in scope and human in nature.

So many people, and I know this because I used to be one, see history as a boring miasma of dates, names, and places. But it is a vibrant tapestry of emotions and people just as human as we are, just as fallible as we wish we weren't and just as capable of the same greatness to which we aspire. When Henry exhorted his weary men once more unto the breach and to cry God for Harry, England, and St. George, I wanted to leap out of my seat and follow him into battle. And that is the power of truly excellent theatre. History may just be words on a page to us now, but it was real to the people who lived it. The blood that was so often talked of, whether in threats against France, or in laments against that already spilled, was drawn from real men and women, who felt as much pain at it as we might.

I have always had a fondness for the Hundred Years War (of which the action of the play is a small part), and I have a deep love for the theater that mounted the production, so I was naturally predisposed to like it. I did not expect to find myself pulled so deeply into the history I have seldom looked at since my graduation this past May. When Henry passed sentence on three traitors early in the play, my history major mind was pleased at the distinction of these men as guilty of high treason, having learned the distinction between high and petit treason from my thesis research. This same research again leaped to mind when a common soldier was condemned to a hanging for stealing a minor sum from a French church. I knew about these laws, and I tried to understand the human cost of them. But nothing brings it home like the pain in Henry's face when a man he has known his whole life sells his king to the French and he must condemn him to death, or the anguish when he hears that the common thief being hanged was a companion of his recently abandoned youth.

I have often wished that I could have some permanent record of plays of have seen, and this wish was most fervent after the play was over. But in this, theatre is like history: once it has happened, it lives on only in the memories of those who experienced it. Just as any record of an event is in some way biased and incomplete, my memories of the play can never truly recreate within me the experience of being there, nor can my description of it to anyone else ever accurately convey exactly what happened. But I will never forget the powerful emotions I was allowed to share a taste of with those actors, and it is such passion that we should never remove from history. We should pursue it with as much passion as was given by those who lived it.

This beautiful production of Shakespeare's play brought the human back into the history, the most important and yet, I think, the most often overlooked aspect of our past. We may analyze events and actions, searching for meaning in the vagaries of human record, but now, more than ever, I am determined to remember that the study of history, first and foremost, connects us to other people who lived as we lived, and that to see that we are the same as them is the greatest achievement we can hope to attain.

Brenna

Openings

2008-11-04T22:30:00.000-05:00

Happy Election Night! I hope everyone got out and voted today, and if Facebook statuses are any indication, it seems that people my age aren’t as apathetic as we are stereotyped to be. But that’s not what I’m here to ponder this lovely night.

I’m taking the History of Western Art with Dr. McColl this semester, and about a month ago, the Art, German Studies, and Gender Studies departments sponsored a lecture given by Dr. Jeffrey Hamburger, a medieval art historian at Harvard University, on text and image in medieval religious books. Dr. Hamburger was one of Dr. McColl’s professors in graduate school, so Dr. McColl required our class to go (not that I wouldn’t have gone anyway, the medievalist that I am). In this talk, Dr. Hamburger stressed the symbolic and practical importance of the codex form and the new possibilities that the act of opening a codex created. For medieval Christians, the open book represented salvation, illustrated in the Lamb’s ability to break the seven seals in chapter five of the book of Revelation. I found the manuscript images of this scene interesting in that they depicted the book as a codex, as the modern Biblical translations with which I am familiar describe this object as either a book in general or a scroll. This is an important distinction, as scrolls were used in medieval art to represent the Old Testament Law and prophets, while codices represented Christ, and the new covenant. The codex appeared in the fourth century AD, but it was this symbolic value to Christians that accelerated its adoption. Dr. Hamburger also pointed out the practical considerations that popularized the production of codices: they were more convenient and more comprehensive than scrolls and allowed scribes and patrons to add images to texts and to exploit facing pages to show two images that complimented or juxtaposed one another. While scrolls were still used for public documents and oral readings, codices came to be associated with silent reading and with a transition from an aural culture to a visual culture in which seeing was more important than hearing. Dr. Hamburger chose a variety of images from many different times and places during the Middle Ages to illustrate the various purposes of images in books and the different techniques artists used to achieve their desired effect., which demonstrated the breadth of his analysis.

At that point in the semester, we hadn’t moved past Hellenistic and Greek art in class, but Dr. Hamburger’s presentation touched on several concepts that we had already discussed. In some of the works we examined, such as Praxiteles’ Aphrodite of Knidos, we considered the role of the viewer in the meaning of the image; in this case, the pose of Aphrodite implies that the viewer interrupted her bath. The relationship between the viewer and the image was also an important element in understanding medieval images such as those in a certain Carolingian gospel book that bring the reader into the world of the four evangelists as they composed their gospels. We also looked at the interaction between text and image in works such as the Palette of Narmer and the Stele of Hammurabi, and this interaction was much more developed in medieval books, as images communicated ideas contained in texts or created new meanings for images by associating them with certain texts, as was the case with the images of Jesus and Mary surrounded by verses from the Song of Solomon. In ancient art, we looked at various representations of the relationship between humans and deities, and this tradition continues in the medieval images we saw during Dr. Hamburger’s presentation. Some prayer books showed different images of the ruler humbling himself before Christ, while others, such as one image of an emperor and the Virgin Mary, give humans the same status as important religious figures in a way that is very similar to images such as the Stele of Hammurabi. The media, iconography, and function of these medieval images are very different from the ancient and classical works that we discussed in class, but the presence of these themes illustrates that there are elements of continuity that transcend time and space and to connect people and the images they create.

Not only was this a really fascinating talk, but Dr. Hamburger has a great sense of humor, which he showed throughout his talk. He passed around a wax tablet and stylus to show everyone what one medieval writing tool was like, and he used now obsolete printer paper and a stapler to illustrate differences between scrolls and codices. We also learned the complete history of the bookmark: it was an important readers’ tool in breviaries and other books that frequently made use of cross-referencing. They were also important to copyists who needed to mark their places as they worked through manuscripts. After the talk, the audience asked some excellent questions, and Dr. McColl said in class that Dr. Hamburger was very impressed with the audience and the students who asked questions—apparently that doesn’t happen often in the Ivy League.

It’s been a really good semester for lectures, as there have been a lot of really interesting speakers. Brenna went to a history lecture last week about swearing, and there’s a talk next week about Jewish roots in Germany and the week after on the Whiskey Rebellion. I’m glad that there have been a variety of speakers and that I’ve been able to go; when I first came to college, I went to a lot of lectures my first semester and I thought they were each great opportunities for students. In the past couple of years, there haven’t seemed to be as many and my schedule has made it more difficult for me to go, but I’m hoping that I’ll still be able to catch lectures like these wherever I end up after graduation.

The Educational Side Effects of YouTube

2008-09-29T12:21:00.000-04:00

This is me babysitting the computer lab in Goldstein after having realized that I cannot do homework, because I am ahead on my homework. This means that the only books I have were for class today, and for Friday's class, we've moved on. Oh well. The problems of being an overachiever. So, I am taking the opportunity to finish a blog post I started last semester about the educational benefits of YouTube.

Yes. You read that correctly. YouTube as education. YouTube as a valuable teaching aid. YouTube making class a heck of a lot more fun. You may be scratching your head in disbelief or you may be laughing at me, but I am dead serious, and I will tell you why.

It began, for me, early last school year. In my class on ancient Roman history (which those of you who read this blog last year might recognize), we discussed the various Roman emperors, including Augustus Caesar. Well, there happens to be a wonderful mini-series about said emperors called I, Claudius. Dr. Sorrentino (my wonderful professor) was able to go on to YouTube and find a wonderful clip from the series which she showed us in class. We got to watch as Augustus walked down a line up of approximately 20 men, asking each of them whether they'd slept with his daughter, eventually asking if anyone in Rome had not had sex with her. It really added to our appreciation of just how screwed up some of these Roman emperors were.

Then, last semester, we were discussing whether TV shows from the 60's truly represented life. Dr. Sorrentino found clips from some of the shows discussed, including I Love Lucy and The Honemooners, which gave those students who were not familiar with these shows a chance to see what they depicted. We then watched clips of movies when we were discussing movies about the Vietnam War.

Just last week, Dr. Black showed us clips of a few Russian movies to illustrate points about Ivan the Terrible. One clip was from some Russian slapstick comedy about an inventor who creates a time machine that sent two guys back in time and brought Ivan the Terrible forward in time. The other one was a little more valid, showing Ivan's coronation from a movie about his reign.

What, might you ask, is the point of professors using YouTube? Personally, I think that it is a wonderful way to help the students to connect with and remember the material. I came back to the dorm and promptly showed the clip of Augustus and the line up of guys to my friends. It also provides a nice change in how class is run. Class is usually based on lecture with discussion mixed in to keep things interesting. YouTube allows professors to break up the routine, to prove to their students that they actually are a part of the 21st century. YouTube is basically a staple of life for many college students, and I think that it helps to make their classes seem a little more relevant.

So, the next time you sigh because of all the random YouTube videos that people you know watch, just remember that somewhere out there, lucky college students are benefiting from all of its wonderful educational attributes. I know I have.

That's all, folks!
Brenna

Strange Fruit

2008-09-27T21:40:00.000-04:00

Greetings, folks! Brenna and I sort of resolved to return to the land of blog once school started, so I thought I’d take a moment and report on this year’s George Washington Book Prize celebration. You might remember that last year’s prize went to Charles Rappleye’s Sons of Providence, which I read over winter break last year. It was pretty interesting, and it started a chain of thought that brought me a summer research project this year, but more on that another day. This year, the prize went to Dr. Marcus Rediker of the University of Pittsburgh for his book The Slave Ship: A Human History. Brenna started reading it, and she’s really enjoying it so far, except that the topic is rather depressing. The title of Rediker’s social history explains it all—the book is about the international slave trade and the experiences of the 12.5 million Africans carried to North America and the various other people involved in the slave trade over four centuries. As Dr. Rediker said at the beginning of his presentation, this isn’t a part of our history that we are comfortable discussing, but “we’ve got to face our past.”

During his talk, Dr. Rediker called the slave trade “a human drama” featuring people of many different cultures and ethnicities who were brought from the interior of Africa, made to endure “humiliating medical inspections,” and directed aboard slave ships, which he called “chambers of horrors.” Because the Africans would cry out as the ship pulled away from the coast, these ships often left port during the night while its cargo was sleeping, leaving the Africans to awake and discover they were in the middle of the ocean. On the other side of the Atlantic, “you could smell a slave ship before you could see it” as a result of the heat, seasickness, and death that took their toll on the ship’s passengers. Dr. Rediker also explained the captains’ use of terror to control the Africans and prevent them from rebelling; he repeated one story that he included early in his book about a woman who was lowered overboard to the sharks that followed the slave ships. When she was removed from the water, her lower half was gone.

One of the most interesting parts of Dr. Rediker’s presentation was his explanation of how Africans resisted aboard slave ships, demonstrating the agency Africans had. Africans engaged in hunger strikes, completed suicide (sometimes en masse), and attempted insurrection (although insurrections were not often successful). Africans also, in Dr. Rediker’s view, showed creativity as they built new cultures, new communities, and new languages during the voyage across the Atlantic, and these mark the slave ships as the start of African-American culture. Bethel AME Church, which is located a block south of our campus, provided a beautiful venue for the lecture, and as a part of the presentation, a woman named Karen Somerville performed songs that described different elements of the slave ship experience. One of these songs mourned the Africans’ departure from Africa and the fact that they were a long way from home, another was a later song about lynching called “Strange Fruit” that they used to highlight the experience of the woman dangling above the sharks, and the final song celebrated the end of slavery and the humiliations of the auction block but lamented and honored the thousands that perished over the course of the slave trade.

After the talk, Brenna and I went to the dedication of the Patrick Henry Fellow’s residence and then to the reception at the Hynson-Ringgold House. The dedication was exciting, especially when Adam Goodheart (director of the C.V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience) brought out a large 18th century sword and used it to open a bottle of champagne (a moment I watched from next to/in a nearby bush to escape the splash zone, as Brenna and I had been right in the front talking with Dr. Miller and his friend, who teaches at the College of William and Mary), and between the dedication and the reception, we were able to catch up with several of our professors. Like last year, there was a public conversation with Adam Goodheart and Dr. Rediker, but Brenna and I both had class, so we weren’t able to attend (which is a shame now that I’m looking back at my notes and the questions I had written down). Nevertheless, a good time was had by all, and I’m going to have to read The Slave Ship over winter break.

Until next time (to quote The Phantom of the Opera), I remain your obedient servant, Ten Page.

Profiles In History: Olga of the Rus

2008-09-08T12:00:00.002-04:00

Hi everyone! Do you remember us? I know, it has been quite a long time since we have written. Well, it's the beginning of a new school year, so I am going to attempt to rectify that situation. I'm taking a class on early Russian history right now, and we've read quite a variety of documents about the early princes and princesses of the Rus lands (what Russia used to be called). Well, the coolest of these (in my eyes) was Olga. Let me share her story with you:

Olga's husband, Igor, was killed by the Derevlians. Why? Well, he'd gone with a bunch of his men to collect tribute. After they were done and were riding away from the city, Igor decided that they hadn't quite gotten enough, so he rode back to take even more from them. Understandably, they were a little pissed off about this. Their response? They killed him.

Well, after this, the Derevlians send emissaries to Olga. They told her that they had killed her husband because he was bad, but their prince was good, so she ought to marry him. Well, Olga told them to go back to their ship. The next day, she would send her men down to them and they should demand to be carried to her hall in their boat. She would then have a celebration for them. Well, they go back to their boats and do everything as she suggested. However, when they get to her hall, it turns out that she had told her men to dig a pit over night. She then has the Derevlians dropped in to the pit. She then basically looks down at them and asks them how they like that. She then has them buried alive.

But it doesn't end there. She then sent her own emissary to the Derevlians. She tells them that she would love to marry their prince, but that her people won't let go of her that easily, so the Derevlians need to send a group of their greatest men to come and convince her people. The Derevlians happily oblige. When this new group shows up, Olga tells them that she has prepared a bath house for them. Pleased by her kindness, the Derevlians all happily trot in to the bath house. Olga promptly locks it behind them and lights it on fire.

But wait, there's more! She takes an army with her and rides off to Dereva, ostensibly to visit her husband's grave. She goes, and mourns, and the Derevlians ask where the men they sent to her were. She tells them that their men are following behind with her husband's body guards. She then lays siege to the town. After a short while, the Derevlians ask her if they could make peace with her. They tell her they will pay her all sorts of great tribute. She says that they can't because they've been under siege. However, she will accept tribute of a few small birds from each house. They happily oblige. Well, she has her soldiers tie incendiary devices of some sort to each bird and lets the birds go. They all promptly fly back to the houses from whence they came, thus burning the city down.

What happens to the survivors of all of this? Olga levies a heavy tribute on them and happily trots back home.

I feel as though there ought to be a moral to this story, but there isn't. Also, to make everything more complicated, Olga is apparently a saint of the Eastern Orthodox Church because she was a convert to Christianity before the Rus were officially converted.

I hope you all enjoyed that story as much as I did!

Until next time,
Brenna

Much Ado About Term Limits

2008-04-06T08:27:00.013-04:00

Hello all!

I am blogging to take a break from working on my pesky thesis introduction. Now, just to reassure some of you: yes, I love my topic. It is difficult enough, however, to write a one paragraph introduction to a 8-10 page paper, much less an 8-10 page introduction for a 50 page paper. Anyway, on to the point of this post.

Elections. That wonderful democratic procedure which we adore in this country. We love electing people. We love complaining about election fraud. We love complaining about the people we elected once they are securely in office. However, once you start elections, you fall pray to If-you-give-a-mouse-a-cookie Syndrome. A.k.a. If you give someone an office, they will want to be reelected (now, this is not always true, just as I'm sure not every mouse wants a glass of milk with his cookie...). Which is why I would like to tell you a little story about term limits:

Once upon a time, there lived a great and glorious man named George Washington. This brilliant general led our country through the Revolution and then admirably steered its course for years to come as its President. When just a lad, he cut down a cherry tree, but, since he could not tell a lie...Nope. Just kidding, I'm not Parson Weems or George Bancroft. Just an FYI, GW did not chop down that cherry tree. It just didn't happen. We do, however, have a few things to thank good old George for in terms of the presidency. First, because of George, we do not have a king. I'm not kidding. Washington was asked to be the king of the new United States. Thankfully, the man said no. Secondly, the two term presidency. George could have easily gotten elected to a third, or even fourth, term in office. After all, the country felt that it had a lot for which to be grateful and Washington had been doing a pretty good job. But, alas, Washington stepped down and created the precedent for two term presidencies.

Then, many, many years later (so many, in fact, that it was a different century), along came a man named Franklin Delano Roosevelt (for the sake of my typing speed, I will refer to him as FDR). FDR entered the White House at a time when the country was in sad shape. The Great Depression was in full swing and Herbert Hoover had done little to help it. But what truly differentiated FDR from his presidential predecessors? He was elected president four times. Yes, he knowingly broke the precedent laid down by none other than George Washington. What prevented FDR from being elected a fifth time? Only his death early in his fourth term (an event the tragic repercussions of which I will save for a future post). FDR's political opponents were so pissed off that, when they got the chance, they passed a law which capped the presidency at ten years or two terms. Naturally, this would come back to bite them in the butt later on, but that's beside the point.

The moral of the story is that we now have legally mandated term limits on the Presidency. Now at this point, you are probably wondering why I told you all of this (or you are still wondering who Weems and Bancroft are. Maybe you are still recovering from the disillusionment over the cherry tree. I guess I don't really know). Well, there are two reasons.

1) George W. Bush. I don't think I have ever heard so much excitement over a President's un-reelectability (yes, I did just make that word up) due to term limits. Trust me, people are psyched. I'm sure some of you who are reading this are probably doing a happy dance that Bush cannot get reelected. Personally, I would like to think that if a president had screwed up enough that people were this excited to get rid of him that he would not get elected again, term limits or no. However, I will turn your attention to a British newspaper headline when Bush last got elected: "How Can 59,000,000 People Be So Dumb?" Not that I'm saying Americans are stupid. I'm just repeating the British (and we all know what they think of us, those poncy tossers).

2) Spencer Dove. Non WaC attenders will most likely have no idea who this is. And that's fine. Like most other schools in the country, WaC is a democratic sheep and, as such, we dutifully hold elections every year for positions in the SGA (Student Government Association). These elections have never been quite as controversial as they were this year. The president of the SGA for this past year was Spencer Dove, a junior and ex-president of the Class of 2009. When he ran for SGA office last year, he promised that he would not seek reelection. Allow me to say that this was a poor move on his part. Promises not to seek reelection do not end well. Teddy Roosevelt made that promise at the beginning of his second term as President, which created problems with getting anything done and prevented him from ever successfully obtaining a third term.

Anyway, back to WaC. Spencer got elected and served as SGA pres. for the 2007-2008 school year. About a month ago, it's election time again and, who's running? Spencer Dove. This ticked a lot of people off. His opponent's platform rested on her belief in upholding the tradition of a one term junior as SGA president. Well, Spencer won reelection and we have precedent breaking second term senior as our president for next year. This was such a major event that it spawned an article in The Cherry Tree (the April Fool's edition of The Elm) as well as an actual article in The Elm. For those interested, you can find The Elm article here: Dove Wins Second Term. I can only hope that my classmates will eventually take as much interest in state and government politics as they did in school politics.

That is my story on term limits. I hope you all enjoyed reading it. I know I enjoyed writing it. I cannot guarantee that I will post again before the end of the semester. There are, at present, three long papers and two short papers between me and going home. As soon as my Method paper (a.k.a thesis intro) is in, however, I will feel much better.

This is Brenna, signing off.

“Behold, your king comes to you…”

2008-03-22T11:41:00.004-04:00

-Matthew 21:5, better known as the perspective of Parson Weems and George Bancroft on the Founders

Yes, it has been a long time since either of us has written, and you have our sincere apologies. We have been suffering from blogger’s block and more urgent historical matters have also captured our attention (like thesis prospectuses and outlines and other papers…..) But I had some thoughts on our studies in Historical Method that I wanted to share.

Historical Method is a class required of all history majors in which we study the history of the art and science of researching and writing history. We have readings from various historical works written throughout history, (fascinating) case studies in United States history that illuminate various points and problems in researching the past, and lectures from all the members of the department on historiography as it relates to their fields of specialization. About a month or so ago, in anticipation of Dr. Miller’s lectures on Early American historiography, we read excerpts from Parson Mason Weem’s Life of Washington and George Bancroft’s History of the United States. They were pretty amusing, to say the least. Parson Weems struck me as part historian, part hagiographer, and part Dr. Spock; his biography, as Dr. Miller explained, served to create the larger-than-life Founding Father that we know and love and was part of the general atmosphere of idolizing all of the founders. Weems was pretty clear in his writing that one should follow George’s father’s parenting techniques if one wants to raise children who are as virtuous as the great George Washington, and as an example of this great virtue, Weems provides the anecdote of George chopping down the cherry tree and then owning up to it when questioned by his father. This incident, along with many of Weem’s other mythic episodes, didn’t actually happen. This ideal continued throughout the 19th century, and even into our own day, and is present in art as well as writing. Dr. Miller showed us some pretty amusing images extolling George Washington, Brenna and I thoroughly enjoyed The Apotheosis of Washington (check it out here. You can also see it illustrating an article in the issue of Newsweek dated March 17, 2008). If you look closely at the left side of the picture, you can see the Virgin Mary looking on. It also looks like George is rising in glory out of a tomb while soldiers look on (sound familiar, especially this weekend?). Don’t get me wrong, I admire George Washington a lot, and there is definitely a lot we can learn from him, but the cult of George Washington and of the other Founders can be slightly over the top. And it’s still alive and well today.

George Bancroft was even more interesting than Parson Weems. He wrote about how every event during the entire 300 year history of colonial America was moving toward the revolution, and even the early 17th century settlers had freedom on their minds in some way. I was most amused when he started talking about freedom as “the breath of life,” how “a band of exiles, keeping watch by night, heard the glad tidings” brought by the revolution, and the prophets declaring these ideas. His idea of the revolution is a divinely ordained event that he likened to the coming of Messiah, and the language he used illustrated this belief even more than what he said about it. Bancroft did make some good points about how the colonial leaders believed that the British Parliament did not have the knowledge or the ability to govern the colonies by the 1760s and 1770s, which are points that I think most historians would consider valid and relevant; unfortunately, these kernels of substance are generally lost among his messages of deliverance through Washington and the other Founders. When discussing the Bible, the term “typology” refers to the study of events that prefigure the coming of and ministry of Jesus as the Messiah, especially His death and resurrection, like the deliverance of Israel from slavery in Egypt can be understood as a type of the salvation of mankind won by Jesus. Apparently, in the minds of Bancroft and his ilk, Jesus was a type of George Washington.

So that’s a sampling of Historical Method. We’ve also heard lectures about Hegel, Ranke, Marx (the best explanation of Marxism that Brenna and I have ever heard), how history came to be a profession, and twentieth-century debate between Consensus and New Left/Revisionist historians. We’ve also discussed the use of psychological analysis, interviews, and photographs in history, and we will soon have our exam and write our introductory thesis chapters. In other news, there was an article in the Baltimore Sun this past week about a recent survey that concluded that college students experience a lot of stress. It’s a pretty funny article and my classmates and I can attest to its accuracy, although we’re shocked that it seems to have taken this long for someone to declare that which is incredibly obvious. To read it, click here.

Hopefully one of us will write again soon about a conference we went to a few weeks ago and the lecture we will attend this coming Tuesday, but until then, have a very happy Easter!

The Power of the Press

2008-02-27T10:25:00.010-05:00

With my apologias out of the way, allow me to actually blog. That is, if you are not completely shunning us by this point, and act for which I would definitely not blame you.

Over the weekend, I had two interesting run in's with good journalism. The first was via a clipping from the Chicago Tribune which my mother sent me last week. The article was deploring the sad state of historical education in both the United States and England. Apparently, 23% of British teenagers do not believe in Winston Churchill. I'm not even sure how that is possible. How do you not believe in Winston Churchill? That would be like an American teenager not believing in FDR. That goes beyond the kind of ignorance that leads many U.S. teens to be unable to identify the three branches of American government. At least they are not claiming that our government does not exist. They simply feel that knowing the names of the Three Stooges is more important. Having that sort of arcane knowledge myself, how can I possibly blame them? But Winston Churchill is not Santa Claus. I have an image in my head of some proper British mother sitting down her 10 year old daughter and saying, "I'm sorry Sally, but Winston Churchill is not real." My hope is that the poor child would cry. She should cry. Because it is a lie.

Now, 47% percent of these same British teens believe that Richard the Lionheart is a fictional character. This one, I can understand. Richard lived an extremely long time ago. He spent very little time in England and could not even speak English. As my roommate said, "Someone in the Robin Hood stories has to be fictitious, and it isn't going to be Robin Hood." And it is through the Robin Hood stories that most of these teens probably know who Richard is. So I don't blame them so much for this one, though the part of my heart that belongs to medieval England is crying a little.

For anyone who is interested, you can find the article here.

My other run in with wonderful journalism was because of assigned reading for school. Let me first say that this has been a banner semester for academic reading. Not only am I reading The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings, I have also been reading fantastic novels for both my Modern German history class and for Latin American Literature as History. However, I am beginning to appreciate breaks from the novel reading,and one came when we began to read a new book for Modern Germany, called What I Saw: Reports from Berlin 1920-1933. It is a collection of newspaper columns about Berlin by an Austrian journalist named Joseph Roth, and it has been translated from the original German.

Aside from the historical interest I have in the articles, I cannot get over the fact that they represent damn good writing. In his descriptions of everything from really large department stores (as opposed to simply large department stores) to the local homeless shelter, he uses turns of phrase that ring of poetry. He also brings a new prospective to everything, such as how God must have invented sand just for the enjoyment and education of children and how it must have been a whim of fate that made such a disorganized city as Berlin capital of the whole German Reich.

Whether or not any of you care about German history, if you simply enjoy reading (as I know many of you do), you will be doing yourself a major favor if you read this book. I cannot do justice to it in my description.

Well, that is my blog for the day. We are presenting papers at the Phi Alpha Theta conference this Saturday, and I imagine that one of us will want to blog about that. So keep checking back and, with luck, we will be back with you soon.

Brenna

I Guess I Lied

2008-02-27T10:22:00.003-05:00

Hello all. It looks as though I was overly optimistic when I announced that our blogging hiatus was over. It apparently was not. That might have something to do with the fact that we have been having one busy semester. We're taking a class called Historical Method in which we are begining to write our senior theses and I know that I have been doing a lot of reading and writing for my classes, as has Gillian.

I hope that we will finally start blogging again. We'll see how it goes this time...

Hiatus Over

2008-01-23T10:06:00.000-05:00

Hello to all of our lovely blog reading community. Now that Winter Break is over, we are back. We have not, however, completely settled on a blogging schedule for this semester so, when we do (which should be by the end of this week) we will let you know what it is. Until then, we appreciate that you are all still reading and we promise to bring some exciting history factoids your way this semester.

Just to add something historically fun, on this day in 1849, Elizabeth Blackwell was awarded her M.D., thus becoming the first female doctor in the United States.

Brenna and Gillian

How Capitalism Stole Christmas…

2007-12-08T13:00:00.000-05:00

And we’re not talking about stores decorating before Thanksgiving (though just ask Gillian about it). No, we’re talking about How the Grinch Stole Christmas as analyzed from a socio-political perspective by sleep-deprived college students the weekend before finals.

The Grinch – He represents all that is wrong with capitalism. He is not satisfied until he has everything (he stole the last crumb from the mouse). He exploits and abuses the common, working man (see: Max). His small heart shows his lack of moral values, while his tight shoes represent the restrictive nature of operating within a system predicated on materialism and selfishness.

Whoville – Whoville is a communist workers' utopia. All of the Whos share everything, from toys to food. They dine at a communal table and eat of the same food, with everyone getting his fair share and no one profiting at another’s expense. As the roast beast is sliced, each person passes it down, looking out for everyone else before taking care of himself. Their ability to enjoy Christmas without objects proves that their lives are based on society and moral strength, not materialism.

Max – Max is the common man. He is trampled on and taken advantage of by the Grinch. He sticks with it, though, because he doesn’t know any better. When he is “pulling” the Grinch’s sled, he is representing the Red Queen theory of economics*: he must keep running faster and faster to stay ahead of the sled. This scene also shows that the Grinch only profits by taking advantage of Max’s labor.

Cindy Loo Who – She represents the questioning youth who wants to try new ideas. Her confrontation with the Grinch over the Christmas tree and what he tells her shows the lies capitalists tell to brainwash the masses. When the Grinch says he’s taking the tree to fix the light, but he’ll bring it back, he is representing monopolies snapping up smaller companies to decrease competition.

In the end, the Grinch does not turn away from capitalism; he brings back all of the Christmas trappings, showing that he still sees them as essential. However, he has become a moral capitalist, shown by his equal slicing of the meat, which demonstrates fair labor practices. Max gets the first slice of roast beast, showing that in this new society, the needs of the common man are looked out for. By breaking bread with the Whos, the Grinch is saying that he now realizes that he and the Whos can work together as part of the same global community, despite their different political/economic beliefs.

Well, there you have it: proof that our brains are fried. Somewhere, our parents are wondering if this is the only result of our expensive education…

Also, we apologize for the lack of posts lately. We just finished the last week of classes and we are now preparing for finals week. As history majors, we do have scholastic concerns to deal with.

We will be back soon, with a whole slew of holiday themed posts (keep an eye out for the history of that festive drink, eggnog, as well as our favorite holiday songs).

Happy Holidays!

Brenna & Gillian

*This theory is based on a scene from Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll. See Chapter 2, “Live Flowers.”

Profiles in History: Geoffrey Plantagenet

2007-11-28T22:49:00.000-05:00

Most people have heard of Richard the Lionhearted, if only through Robin Hood stories. They’ve also heard of his brother, John (the phony king of England). A few less people have heard of their older brother, Henry, who predeceased them and their father, Henry II, and their mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine. But who has heard of their middle brother (between Richard and John), Geoffrey, duke of Brittany? Well, anyone who has seen The Lion in Winter has. But what do we know about this forgotten brother?

Why do I like Geoffrey so much? I think it all harkens back to the first bit of The Lion in Winterthat I ever saw. I was channel surfing and I found it on some movie station. It was the scene where Henry II is talking to Philip Augustus and all three sons start popping out from behind tapestries. I figured out who Henry was, but I assumed that Philip was either John or Richard (since I had no idea what was going on and, as far as I knew, Henry only had two sons). When three more sons presented themselves, I was beyond confused. Who the heck were these people? My parents ended up buying it and I was pleased to see that the scene made much more sense in context. I then got to school, and promptly learned about the Plantagenet kings in my second semester of Western Civ. It was an exciting moment for me.

Geoffrey II Plantagenet was the fourth son of King Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine (the eldest son died in infancy). He was married to Constance, duchess of Brittany and had three children: two daughters and his son, Arthur. Geoffrey seemed to have a passion for joining his various siblings in rebellions against their father. He even took young Henry’s side in a battle against Richard. Geoffrey was also a close friend of Philip Augustus, king of France. One version of Geoffrey’s death (at age 28) has Philip so distraught the he attempted to jump into the coffin as well.

Geoffrey’s early death is the reason that he did not become king after the death of Richard. However, due to the law of primogeniture, Geoffrey’s son, Arthur, ought to have been next in line in place of his father. However, after Geoffrey’s death, Arthur was place under the wardship of John. He was sent on a boat across the channel to England with some of John’s men, and he never arrived… Before his death, Arthur carried on the family tradition of rebellion and joined his father’s friend Philip in war against his uncle, Richard. Anyone who has seen The Lion in Winter and believes the family schisms to be exaggerated, that family had serious issues.

If Geoffrey had lived longer, would he have earned his own fun place in history alongside his brothers? I would certainly hope so, because he was definitely wily enough to deal with Philip if he had ever come to the throne. As it is, I get to adore this forgotten son of British history.

Now, you should all go do something fun and holiday related. I will sink back into my life of academia and count the days until the end of the semester, with half of me wanting them to go faster so I can go home and the other half wanting them to go slower so I have more time to study and work on my two papers.

Brenna

Enlightened Despotism

2007-11-21T13:22:00.000-05:00

Happy Thanksgiving! I sincerely hope that this weekend is relaxing and that you have a chance to spend time with your family and friends before the holiday season really gets in gear.

Last fall, I took Russia and the Soviet Union I with Dr. Black, and it was a wonderful class. Russian history seems to always take a back seat in European/world history courses in favor of Western Europe, China, and the United States, which is a shame, because Russia was formed from a variety of ethnic groups and throughout its history, there have been lots of colorful characters who overthrow rulers with startling regularity. The downside of having this many characters is that Russian history is pretty complicated. Especially in the Middle Ages, when there were a whole bunch of Russian princes running around. Our first textbook was a collection of primary source documents from the medieval period, and they were really challenging reading.

At about this time last year, we finished studying Catherine the Great, tsarina of Russia from 1762 to 1796. She is a really fascinating persona for more reasons than just her romantic life. During her life, she had an absurd number of lovers, which contributed even more to court politics, as you might imagine. However, anything you may have heard about a horse being involved in her death is absolutely not true and is urban legend, just as Marie Antoinette (a contemporary of Catherine, acutally) never said that the peasants should eat cake.

Catherine came to power after some of the court nobles wrote a manifesto dethroning Peter III and confirming her as tsarina. She was a hands-on ruler, and foreign relations were an important part of her reign. In order to keep neighboring Poland weak, she negotiated with the rulers of Prussia and Austria to partition Poland, effectively eliminating it as a territory by 1795. Catherine was also involved in the affairs of the Holy Roman Empire and a war with Turkey in 1778.

What interests me the most about Catherine the Great is her intellecutal prowess. She was extremely well-read (she admired the works of Voltaire and Montesquieu and even corresponded with Voltaire) and believed in many Enlightenment ideas. She was an autocratic ruler but still accepted the rule of law, thinking that rulers should not be arbitrary. She provided for the protection of the rights of serfs and of nobles, disapproved of censorship, and created many intellectual institutions. Catherine promoted secular learning and believed in reason. In my last paper for class, I talked about how the ways in which Catherine adopted Enlightenment values. She wrote educational books and supported the standardization of the Russian language, believed in Adam Smith's free enterprise theories of economics, worked to open trade within Russia, formed a Legislative Commission to serve as her advisory body, and protected many of the rights that are found in our Bill of Rights and in our tradition, such as habeus corpus, protection from false imprisonment, and protection from torture.

Unfortunately, Catherine backed away from this Enlightened position in the last years of her reign, as the French Revolution caused her to fear a similar occurence in Russia. She is considered an Enlightened despot as a result of her firm rule and her openness to Western ideas. One can only wonder where she would have brought Russia if things had been different in France and in America and whether she would still be considered an enlightened ruler if she lived in a different world.

Public Service Announcement: Supplemental

2007-11-18T21:34:00.000-05:00

Gillian certainly managed to beat me to it. By it, I mean a public service announcement on writing. But I do have a few things to add to what she said.

I have gained a new appreciation for the work that is good writing this semester because I am in an internship to work in our school's Writing Center (where Gillian already works). I've always known that writing is important. I've always that it is something that will be in just about any job you could possibly have. I've always known that there are many kinds of writing other than an English paper. What I discovered this semester is that most people don't realize this. They assume that if they are not an English major, then they can kiss papers good-bye. Ah, how wrong they are.

A good portion of your future will depend upon your ability to write well and effectively. Gillian and I are worrying about writing papers for history conferences. Last semester, I worried about writing essays for internship applications. All seniors who plan on going to graduate school are worrying about application essays. My sister, who is working on her PhD in neuroscience has to write proposals of various kinds. The point is, writing is everywhere.

I will admit that in high school, I coasted on my writing for as long as possible. Most high school teachers, I have noticed, do not have the highest standards for writing. This means that many students get a rude awakening when they get to college. I am also lucky in that I have been writing research papers since fifth grade, and I should thank Mrs. Choice every time I write one. But the fact of the matter is that good writing takes a lot of work. It does not happen in a burst of inspiration which leads to a polished eight page paper taking form in one sitting. If it did, my life would be so much easier than it is.

So, please, take our advice: take your writing seriously. It is something on which you will be judged in the future. You may be the most coherent, personable, kind person in the world, but if that does not come across on paper, then you will run into problems at some point. So, please, work on your writing.

Thank you for reading this. Public service announcement over.

Don't Blow Off Your Papers

2007-11-18T20:28:00.000-05:00

A public service announcement from Ten-Page.

As previously published, I couldn't come through with a memoir on the wonderful Catherine the Great this past week, since I had too much work to accomplish. It would be more correct to say that I had one huge task to accomplish. Every spare moment of the past 4 days has been devoted to preparing my paper for New Deal and World War II, which was, by my own choosing, more ambitious of a task than it needed to be, but that's a story for another day. The point I would like to make is as follows: take your papers seriously. This is not going to be a Gillian-dropped-the-ball-and-waited-until-the-last-minute-to-write-her-paper-so-don't-make-the-same-mistake warning, but I would instead like to comment on my experience writing my paper to illuminate my point.

I wrote this paper on the Atlantic Charter and the ways in which it was a statement of the Allies' war aims and of their vision for the post-war world. If you've never heard of the Atlantic Charter, it's okay, because it really hasn't been studied in the way that I expected. Book after book I opened didn't have much to say about the document. I found a wonderful set of primary sources thanks to the American Presidency Project, but it just perplexed me that not much had been written about what struck me as a pretty important statement of policy and intent. I really enjoyed reading my sources and I found some pretty fascinating insights and had a lot of great ideas for this paper. This is only a last minute story in that I started taking notes last Wednesday, and this paper is due tomorrow, which worried me greatly, but I knew I would manage to get my paper together. Anyway, I get all my notes done on Thursday and I have an outline by dinner time and started writing it after dinner. But in doing that I came to some very interesting realizations and insights that pretty much changed my outlook on the world.

I've always been an idealist; I understand the problems we face, and, believe me, I get the reasons why we have them and why we haven't been able to solve them. But I still see the great potential in humanity and the great capacity to do good. But we don't, and if you want the full theological/historical/observational argument, I'd be glad to fill you in. Suffice it to say that a whole lot of things made a whole lot more sense to me as I analyzed this document and put my paper together.

Which brings me to my point. Papers are healthy. Yes, I love to write, and yes, I worked very hard to earn my nickname. I'm quite proud of my nickname, actually. But a paper is a chance or, dare I say it?, an excuse to really get into something you're interested in and make your brain happy by constructing an intellectual argument. You might get a prompt from a professor, but you still have the chance to make it your own, to add your voice and your insights to the intellectual conversation that academics reference. Not only that, but it gives you the chance to grow as a scholar and as a person. I'm a much better person because I wrote this paper. And it would be awesome if more students realized this about paper writing (and I bet the professors might get excited, too).

One of the best pieces of advice I've gotten recently was from Dr. Jeff Burson, who was a visiting professor last spring when Dr. Black was on sabbatical (WaC people: you can say what you want, but I have a different perspective than you). I met with him one day about graduate school, and he said that it's really beneficial if in graduate school, you treat all your seminar papers as future published articles, because publication is everything in the professional world. I've caught myself treating my undergraduate papers in this way, looking to publish them in the student journals we have here or present them at a conference or two (both of these are true for my WWII paper). It's really helpful advice, and it makes a big difference to look beyond the paper's due date and to think of a paper in this way. So I offer it to all the students out there. Think beyond, think big, and don't blow off your paper.

By the way, I did get my paper done, it just needs the last read-through and one end note needs to be adjusted, after I look up how to properly cite a website. The 16 page draft of the real paper is waiting for me to revise it next week or the week after, after I knock off some of these other assignments.

Repeating History: Who Hasn't Slept with Augustus' Daughter and the End of WWII

2007-11-17T21:36:00.000-05:00

Faithful readers, I am back to share with you more scintillating lessons from this past week in history academia. I am also trying to ignore my roommate, who has been alternately talking to herself and me for the last hour, and I have decided that ignoring her will solve the problem of whether or not she's actually addressing her comments to me. So, here goes:

Ancient Rome:

We began he week by finishing up our discussion of Augustus and then moving on to his predecessor, Tiberius. As part of this, we watched a clip from I, Claudius which Dr. Sorrentino was able to find on YoutTube. In this clip, Augustus is asking a long line of men if they have slept with his daughter. When I was showing it to Bess, I counted, and there were 20 guys in the line. At the end of the questioning, Augustus yells, "Has anyone in Rome not slept with my daughter?" I'm really hoping that the answer to that question is yes, because the implications of the other answer are quite simply disturbing.

The next class, we discussed Roman religion. First of all, I found it interesting to actually learn about the Vestal Virgins. They served the goddess Vesta, the goddess of the hearth. They kept the eternal flame which represented the "hearth" of Rome burning. They were given over to the order between the ages of five and ten, and were dedicated to her for 30 years. During that 30 years, they followed a vow of chastity. If they broke their vow, they were buried alive. We also discussed some of the different festivals, such as the Lupercalia and the Bacchanalia. The later ended up having laws passed against it because, as Dr. Sorrentino put it, it "seemed to be affecting...family values." Probably had something to do with the orgies...

On Friday, we learned about the situation in Judea. They threw off their Hellenistic rulers, the Seleucid family. Then the priestly family which had led the revolt, the Macabees, took over. After a few rulers, one of them declared himself king as well as high priest. This was a problem, since he was not of the Davidic line. At various times, certain factions made alliances with Rome, and, in the end, Rome concluded that the political situation there was extremely unstable, thus when Vespacian became emperor, he and his son basically threw the Jews out of Judea.

New Deal and WWII:

We finished up the war this week. The Allied troops moved across France while the Russians came toward Germany from the other direction. In December, the Germans engaged in a massive counter attack against the Allies, which became known as the Battle of the Bulge. One of the reasons the Allies won was because Patton, who further south, was able to bring his army up much more quickly than people thought he should have been able to.

When the Big Three met at Yalta to discuss post-war plans, FDR did not want to offend Stalin because he figured that he would need Soviet help for the invasion of Japan, because by this point everyone knew that Germany was done, it was just a matter of time. However, FDR died in April, so he was not able to see the end of the war in Europe. This also left Truman in a rather awkward position, since FDR had not kept him up to speed on everything, not the least of which was the Manhattan Project. Hitler also killed himself in April and the Germans surrendered in May.

Everyone knew that Japan was next now that Germany was done. While the war in Europe was finishing, we invaded the main island of the Philippines. The fighting there was intense, but in the end we won. Then, the debate arose over how to deal with Japan. MacArthur wanted to do an invasion, while Nimitz wanted to blockade the Islands. Then, we successfully tested the first atomic bomb. This left Truman with a difficult choice. Should he use the bomb or not? As we all know, he did use the bomb, twice. There is still a great deal of controversy over whether he should have done so or not. Nevertheless, it happened and Japan surrendered.

Well, there you have it. Since next week is Thanksgiving break, and we will only have one session of each class, I don't think that there will be a Repeating History next week. Do, however, look out for a Profile in History on Wednesday and a Holiday History on Thanksgiving, which will (hopefully) be guest blogged by my roommate, Bess.

Brenna

Even History Majors Fail Sometimes...

2007-11-15T10:17:00.000-05:00

Well, I fell down on the job this week. Here's why:

There was supposed to be a Profile in History last night.
It was supposed to be about Catherine the Great.
Gillian was supposed to write it.
It was not supposed to involve me. I was going to sit back and read the fruit of my lovely co-blogger's education.

However, Gillian knew that she was going to have a lot of school work to do yesterday, so she asked me on Tuesday if I could write about someone else this week, and she would blog about Catherine next Wednesday from the comfort of her own break at home. I agreed, being an understanding person and not thinking about how much school work I had to do yesterday. I should have made a PostIt note to remind me, but I did not. Therefore, I got so involved in working on the paper for our New Deal and WWII class, which is due Monday, that I never got around to the blog. I forgot. I am sorry.

Since I will be spending the majority of my free time to day working on that paper, there will not be a Profile in History today. But it will be back next week with all of the fun facts about Catherine that Gillian can dredge up from her much abused mind. And I'm sure that it will be worth the wait.

I hope that the weather is more cheerful for our faithful reader than it is for us today. It is grey, it is rainy, and I desperately did not want to get out of bed this morning. If your day is like this, then have the best day you can have.

Brenna

The George Washington Book Prize

2007-11-13T10:16:00.001-05:00

When we began our freshman year at Washington College, it was the first year for something else, as well: the George Washington Book Prize. This prize is awarded to a book which provides a new angle on either George Washington or the founding of the country.

We both recall slogging through the rain to hear Ron Chernow's lecture on Alexander Hamilton that Thursday freshman year, even though Gillian and I did not know each other then. Last year, we again slogged through the rain, together, this time to hear Stacy Shiff talk about Benjamin Franklin. Gillian read Stacy Schiff's book, which analyzed Franklin's experience in France and his role in securing the French as allies in the American Revolution. She said that it was a really fascinating book and a great read, and I do plan on reading it, at some point...

It has become a point of pride for us that we have attended all three GW Book Prize winner lectures thus far. This year, we got to hear Charles Rappleye talk about the Brown brothers and their relationship to the slave trade in Revolutionary era America. I, unfortunately, could not stay for the whole talk, due to the fact that I had a rehearsal at which I needed to be. Normally, I would have skipped the rehearsal; however, I'd already missed two, one for my Fellowship talk and the other for our trip to Virginia. Gillian said the talk was really interesting; Rappleye talked about the personality differences between the two brothers who were polar opposites, as one was a fervent abolitionist, and the other was firmly devoted to the slave trade and its profitability. Rappleye also chronicled Moses' various efforts to end the slave trade and John's efforts to keep it going. Gillian intended to finish the book before school started, and began reading the book at the beginning of the semester, but she had to set it aside to do the things that professors assigned. That will be the first book she reads over winter break (which, horrifyingly enough, is only a few weeks away).

After the talk and my vocal consort rehearsal, we hooked up and headed downtown to the president's house for the reception. We got invited because we are cool history majors. Since we had both conscientiously RSVP'd, we had name tags with our year on them waiting for us so that people would know who we were. I talked to a woman from the C. V. Starr Center that I had met when I did my presentation, which was nice. There were lots of hors d'oeurves, and Adam Goodheart made a few presentations, recognized some people, and introduced a professor who is a visiting fellow this year at the C. V. Starr Center. After all that, we worked our way over to where Dr. Miller and Dr. Black were, and talked to them the rest of the time. I'm sure that some college students would cringe in horror at the idea of talking to professors outside of the classroom, but we like our professors here. They are nice people. They are not scary, they don't look like they are going to eat our children or anything odd like that. We also walked back to campus with them, which was nice, because walking home in the dark is not the most fun thing in the world. The conversation was pretty hilarious, and we thoroughly enjoyed it.

The next day, Adam Goodheart, the head of the C. V. Starr Center, conducted an interview with Mr. Rappleye about writing about history, which we both attended (at least until I had to go to Ancient Rome). The talk was very interesting, and at the end, the audience members had the chance to ask Mr. Rappleye their own questions. Everyone was surprised that it wasn't raining all over everything this year, which was certainly a nice change of pace.

Getting to go to these lectures is one of the reasons why being at this school is so rewarding. Washington College has been around since 17 82, and we take all of that history quite seriously. Being a history major, all of that background provides a wonderful environment in which to study. The school also does a pretty good job of having a lot of good speakers come each semester, which add to the college experience for students, professors, and the other members of the College community.

I Know What I Did Last Summer Pt. 3: Conclusion

2007-11-11T10:59:00.000-05:00

Good day, everyone! I am back to finish up discussing my wonderful summer fellowship experience. It was so kind of them to give me money to support me over the summer; however, as I am sure most of you know, large amounts of money seldom come without strings. The string for this money was, as these things go, quite manageable and, once my part was over, pleasant. I had to go to the Customs House, which houses the C. V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience, and present my research to my fellow fellows, their faculty sponsors, the selection committee for the fellowship, the couple who sponsors the fellowship, and anyone else who decided to come and could fit into the small room.

Naturally, since this was a chance for me to speak publicly and prove that I am an intelligent person who spent my summer well, I began to feel nervous about a week in advance. The week of, I began to look over my notes, I made an outline of what I wanted to talk about, and I practiced giving my talk so that I would stay within the suggested time guideline. My roommate, who has a tendency to freak out much more than I usually do, was no doubt perplexed to see this other side of me. She also was kind enough to let me bounce ideas off of her one night as she was washing dishes.

Well, soon enough, Thursday rolled around and, since I only have one class on Thursdays and it is over by 10, I had nothing to do for the day except to worry about my presentation. I tweaked my outline, practiced my talk at least five times, and tried to keep myself calm as much as was possible. I got myself dressed up and walked downtown to the Customs House. I arrived early, successfully found the room we were presenting in, sank into a large squishy arm chair, and tried to look as though I belonged there. Shortly, Adam Goodheart, the head of the C. V. Starr Center, began, saying that we would go in alphabetical order and that he'd introduce us.

The girl before me talked about the educational system in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. It was certainly not something I knew a lot about, so I found it quite interesting. When she was done, and questions had been asked, it was my turn. I got up, walked to the front of the room without falling over, and began to talk. I even made them laugh a few times. Generally, it went well. I was also pleased that everyone asked really good questions. Other than Prof. Volansky asking me how on earth I came up with my topic (which was the role of women in the 1893 Columbian Exposition, for those who don't remember), my favorite question was from Dr. Black (who, as was mentioned in our earlier post Guest Stars, is the chair of our wonderful history department, and who I had only briefly met when he had to sign my major declaration form freshman year). He asked about the fact that it was an international exposition, were there any foreign women involved. Now, I'd specifically tried to keep my talk on the American side of things, since the research was supposed to be about an aspect of American history, but his question gave me the chance to talk about the things I'd learned about all of the foreign women, as well.

Once I was done, I was able to calmly sit and listen to the presentations of the last three students, which were all extremely interesting, as well. After that was dinner, and I found myself at a table with Dr. Black, Mrs. Collier (one of the donors for the Fellowship) and a few other adults from school. I am proud to say that I was able to keep my conversational end up with a group of adults. Generally speaking, socializing with people I do not know is not my strong suit, so I was glad that it went well. It was also nice to finally meet Dr. Black, since Gillian has always spoken so highly of him.

In the end, it was a wonderful evening. I managed to make myself sound intelligent, rather than like the raving lunatic my roommate must think I am sometimes, and I had a wonderful time. For all those WaC sophomores or juniors who are reading this, if you have any interest in some aspect of America's past, you should really apply for this fellowship next semester. It was a wonderful experience, which I am not about to forget any time soon. I am also, at the moment, working on a paper based on my research that I can submit to the Phi Alpha Theta conference this year.

Well, that finally wraps up my wonderful summer. I hope that you all enjoyed reading about it and, if you have any questions about the 1893 Exposition, do not hesitate to ask.

This is Brenna, signing off...

Repeating History: Child-Bearing Incentives and D-Day

2007-11-10T18:45:00.000-05:00

Good day, our loyal readers! It is now that time where we tell you what we have learned in our history classes this past week. Well, again, by "we" I mean "me." Gillian is off spending time with her family, so she could not assist. Ah well, enjoy!

Ancient Rome:

After the assassination of Julius Caesar, a new triumvirate sprang up, to which historians gave the highly creative appellation, the Second Triumvirate. Now, the Second Triumvirate was a recognized political entity, unlike the First Triumvirate, which was an informal political alliance. The Second Triumvirate was composed of Marcus Antonius, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. Since no one actually wants to remember every single one of a Roman's names, these three are generally known as Marc Antony, Marcus Lepidus and Octavian.

Octavian, named as Caesar's heir in his will, came to Rome at the behest of the senate to try and bring Antony under control. However, the result of Octavian's battle with Antony was their agreement to cooperate, since Octavian recognized that the senate was just using him. So, the three triumvirs divided up the Roman world among themselves. One of their first acts was to initiate violent proscriptions. One of the men to die as a result was the great orator Cicero. The triumvirs also had Caesar's assassins, Brutus and Cassius, declared outlaws so that they could go after them, which they did. Both Brutus and Cassius killed themselves after their armies were defeated.

However, Antony and Octavian still did not like each other all that much. Lepidus was off chilling in North Africa while Antony went of to the East. While there, he began an affair with Cleopatra of Egypt. This was a problem because Antony was married to Octavian's sister, Octavia. To make it better, she was Antony's second wife. So, she was left behind to care for Antony's children with his first wife while he went off and had children with Cleopatra. Personally, I'd say that that seems like poor planning on Antony's part.

Well, to make a long story short, Octavian forced Lepidus to retire and then went after Antony and Cleopatra. He defeated their armies and they killed themselves (are we seeing a theme here?). For anyone who wants an entertaining account of this period of Roman history, read Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra. They are both wonderful plays.

Anyhoo, Octavian took power and, in 27 B.C.E., he declared the Restoration of the Republic. Interesting note, he was not called emperor, nor were the rest of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. They were princeps, which means "prince." Thus, this period is officially referred to as the principate. Of all the things Octavian did, the most entertaining was the Creation of the Julian laws. One group, the Julian Law of Chastity and Repressing Adultery, gave certain strictures about bringing women to trial for adultery. This did end up forcing Octavian to exile his daughter, but can you blame her? Her father married her off to two or three different men. But this wasn't the best part. Octavian also wanted to make sure that women had children. If a woman had more than three children, she had legal freedom from her husband, which is pretty cool. However, monetary incentives could be gained by having 25 or more children. 25!! Who actually wants to have 25 children? And there better be monetary incentives! How else could you afford them all? Further reason that I am glad I don't live in Ancient Rome.

The New Deal and World War II:

We finally invaded France this week. Churchill just kept putting it off, but it finally happened. Not until after we'd invaded Italy, of course. But I suppose I ought to back up a little.

When last we saw them, the Allied forces were trucking away in Africa. As things went well there, Churchill and FDR met in Casablanca to discuss what to do next. Naturally, the next step was Italy. Seems perfectly logical. But not to Stalin, who was still pissed that there was no western front to distract Hitler. And Hitler understood this to mean that there would be no distraction, so he continued to concentrate on Russia.

The Italian campaign did not go nearly so well as our military commanders anticipated that it would. Mussolini had just gotten overthrown, and then the Nazis came in to help. Most attempts to get around the Nazi forces ended badly, and the Italian campaign continued until Germany's surrender. (A note from Gillian--the Allies' first advance in Italy was made against a German fortification line known as the Gustav Line. Under the command of General Mark Clark, who will later be a successor of General MacArthur in the Korean War, the Allies made a landing at Anzio (Operation Shingle), which was behind the Gustav Line, in January of 1944, intending to flank the German troops and breach the line. Clark didn't move inland fast enough, and the line wasn't breached until May, which led to the capture of Rome in June 1944, two days before the Allied invasion of Normandy. The history of this episode was interesting to me, since one of my mom's uncles fought in the European theater and was among those who landed at Anzio.)

Planning was, however, going on for the cross-channel invasion of France. Since the British had the ultra secret (which I keep wanting to call the über secret, but that doesn't seem like the best idea...), they were able to set up a fake army and they could read German correspondence to make sure that they bought it, which it seemed that they did. Eisenhower massively freaked out about the invasion up until it happened (and can you blame him?), even to the point of writing an apology for defeat. However, D-Day more or less went off without a hitch, though there were heavy casualties (which was to be expected). There was then debate about how to proceed, but Eisenhower told FDR that he'd resign if it didn't happen his way, so FDR put his foot down to Churchill. Several small groups were sent off across France. Another invasion took place in Southern France, which was also a success and allowed the Allies to go at the Nazis from two different directions.

Not much was going on in the Pacific theater, since the majority of men and supplies were being channeled into the cross-channel invasion (no pun intended). There was also much political debate going on back home, especially over who should run with Roosevelt as his vice-president, since it was apparent to everyone that whoever was the new VP would sooner or later be president. It would seem that FDR could have planned all of that better. I don't blame him for wanting to see things through to the end, but he was sick and he knew it. Who knows how things might have gone differently if he hadn't run again.

Well, that's all for this week, folks. Tune in next time, but I don't know what you will be tuning in for since we haven't learned it yet.

Have a wonderful week!

I Don't Think We're in Chestertown Anymore.....

2007-11-09T17:14:00.000-05:00

Yes, I'm back writing again. I've kind of assumed responsibility for our special features, and this is probably the last one for a while. Then I think I'll end up going back to my far-from-the-Internet life of papers and meetings. But first things first.

Almost two months ago, Brenna and I had the opportunity to go to a conference on all things Medieval and Renaissance in Wise, VA. One day in April, an email went around about a Medieval and Renaissance Conference at the University of Virginia's College at Wise, which is way the heck in southwest Virginia (really, really close to Kentucky--I direct you to the map the school provides on their website as a reference throughout this post), although we didn't fully appreciate that at the time. Anyway, we thought it would be great to go, so over the summer we assembled abstracts for our papers (my paper from last fall on the Visigoths and Brenna's paper from the spring on the Dukes of Normandy and the Kings of France) and Dr. Sorrentino was wonderful and wrote us letters of recommendation to accompany our abstracts and sent everything in. There was some confusion in arranging everything and in determining when our presentations would be, but in the end everything worked out. We were slated to present in the 10:10 session on Friday, September 21, and there would be one other presenter.

We left on Thursday the 20th after my 1:00 class. Brenna and I both missed music rehearsals that afternoon, so we were able to hit the road a little after 3. We had made arrangements to stay with Brenna's wonderful aunt and uncle in Roanoke, VA, which is 5.5 hours from Chestertown and 3.5 hours north of Wise. We didn't run into traffic at all over the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (even though two way traffic on the west-bound span terrifies me and I hate when I have to drive with two way traffic) or even in rush hour traffic around the Capital Beltway, and we stopped in Fairfax, VA, for about half an hour around 6:15 or so, just after we had gotten on I-66. As soon as we got out of Fairfax, we were instantly in the middle of countryside--rolling hills, lack of urban stuff, etc. It was really beautiful, especially as the sun continued to go down.

The drive progressed fairly well until on I-81 just south of Staunton (birthplace of President Woodrow Wilson), I started seeing signs that the right lane would be closed ahead for construction. No big deal, I said to myself, and I moved into the left hand lane. Well, everyone else had the same idea. Traffic stopped. It was about 8:20, and it was 8:40 before we even saw the next construction sign, and even farther after that when we saw the actual construction. So we crawled along at about 10 miles an hour for about half an hour, and then we were able to speed up to a whopping 30 miles an hour as we passed the construction, which was taking up about a mile of the right hand lane. When we finally passed it, it was 9:00, we had gone about 3 or 4 miles in the previous 40 minutes, and still had over an hour left to go before we got to Roanoke. We got in at 10:20, which was about two hours later than we planned, but I guess that happens when one travels. While we drove, we listened to the radio, then as we lost the Baltimore stations, we switched to CDs; Brenna put in a Celtic Flute CD, which I really enjoyed. It was really cool to be driving down a highway in such a beautiful area (foothills of mountains) looking up at the almost full moon and the light it casted on the thin clouds in the sky while listening to Celtic Flute music. When we got to the Bychowskis', we chatted for a while with Brenna's uncle and then went to bed, since we had a long day ahead of us on Friday.

That long day started at 5am since we had to hit the road at 6 for the next leg of the journey. We had a wonderful breakfast with Brenna's aunt before she left for work and we left for the conference. We got back on I-81 (still dark at this point) and remained on 81 for the next two and a half hours or so. We drove almost 300 miles on 81, starting at exit 300 coming off of 66 and going to exit 150 to Roanoke and then getting off on exit 17 in Abingdon, VA, and in that time, we passed every exit for every college, from driving through the campus of James Madison University to passing the exits for Virginia Tech, Washington and Lee, and a whole bunch of other schools. After getting off 81, we continued on toward Wise, driving through a bunch of small towns, including Castlewood, which is, according to the sign we saw (in the side of a mountain), the birthplace of Daniel Boone. For that reason, Castlewood is now numbered among my favorite small random towns, along with Pheonixville, PA. But I digress.

We got a little turned around between Coeburn and Wise (the two towns are right next to one another), but we successfully reached our destination. Our directions made things more complicated than they actually were, but it all worked out. To get to the town of Wise, we had to wind our way up this mountain. From the top, things looked something like this:

When we got to the school, we parked, then attempted to figure out where we were supposed to go. After a few minutes, we finally found the Chapel of All Faiths, where the main sessions were and where the registration table was. We checked in and shortly after made our way over to the Slemp Student Center, where the undergraduate panels were held. By this time, it was about 10 and almost time for our panel to start. The chair of our panel was a student at UVA Wise and we chatted with him until we started. The third presenter didn't end up coming, so Brenna and I read our papers (in that order), then there was time for questions. None of the students in the small audience asked any questions, but the moderator and the professor who organized all the undergraduate panels both posed some very interesting questions. I also realized while I was reading that both of our papers echoed some of the same themes about medieval kingship. Our panel ended extremely early, so we went back to the car and dropped some stuff off, and walked around the campus, which looked like this:

Then, it was almost time for lunch, so we went to the dining hall, which is set up very much like ours here at WaC and is supplied by the same food service that feeds us here. After lunch, we went to the two other undergraduate panels, the first entitled "Medieval Art and Literature," in which we heard a FASCINATING paper about Fra Angelico's fresco of the Annunciation and the importance of the birthing stool as a symbol in the painting. The second panel was called "Renaissance Drama and Gender," and featured papers about The Roaring Girl and Shakespeare, the latter of these two Shakespeare papers being extremely controversial and sparking a lot of discussion. This presenter's thesis was that Shakespeare plays, especially Romeo and Juliet are being used to brainwash young girls and enforce the patriarchy. At the end of the day was the keynote lecture, given by Bonnie Wheeler of Southern Methodist University on the idea of reputation in the Middle Ages in general and in Sir Thomas Malory's Sir Lancelot in particular. It was a really fascinating talk, even though I've never studied Malory and am really unfamiliar with the context of the discussion.

After the keynote address, we headed back for Roanoke. We left Wise at about 6 and got back to the Bychowskis' at about 9:30. We spent more time with Brenna's uncle and then started moving toward bed at about 11:30. We got up at 7 the next morning and had breakfast with Brenna's aunt and uncle and then left for Chestertown at 8:15. The various legs of the trip back were pretty uneventful, marked only by stops for food at McDonald's, stops for gas, and then hitting almost a dead stop on US-50 in Annapolis (Navy played Duke that day, so both Annapolis exits were packed), but as soon as we got over the Severn River, it was smooth sailing all the way back to WaC. We arrived back at 1:45, ordered pizza for dinner, and didn't do much else for the rest of the night. It was an awesome experience to go to the conference, and both of us were really, really glad we went. We'd both like to see more students from our school consider going; between Dr. Sorrentino's classes, Prof. Olsen's classes (his field is Medieval literature), Prof. Moncrief's students (Shakespeare), and the various art classes that are offered, we bet we could send a lot of students. And since there were people from as far away as Canada, Texas, and Florida at this conference, it's not like we would be the only ones who traveled great distances to be able to attend. Will Brenna and I take pieces of our theses back next year? The jury is still out on that one, but I for one would love for other students to have this same experience, and I'm excited to attend and hopefully present at Phi Alpha Theta's conference in the spring.

Profiles in History: Huey P. Long

2007-11-08T21:14:00.000-05:00

Well, hello again all of you. It's shaping up to be a beautiful day, and I am going to tell you about a man who could have changed the course of American history drastically, had he lived. Naturally, I am referring to the dictator of Louisiana, Huey P. Long.

Now, some of you who are reading this may know who Huey P. Long is, and that is probably because you know me far too well. However, he is a truly fascinating and frightening person who deserves some recognition.

Huey P. Long was born in a small town in Louisiana. As he saw the horrible conditions that he and the people around him were living in, he decided that he wanted to do something about it. He became governor of Louisiana in 1928 and then became a U.S. senator in 1932. However, he had handpicked his successor as governor and he had taken such firm control of every aspect of Louisiana’s government that he ran the state from Washington, D.C. Even though he supported FDR’s campaign in ’32, he soon split with him and began to prepare his own presidential campaign for ’36. He even went so far as to write a book called My First Days in the White House about what he would do as president. Due to his assassination in September ’35, the book was published posthumously.

While governor of Louisiana, Long worked hard to improve the state’s infrastructure by building new roads and even having a new capitol building built. He called his main program “Share the Wealth” and its slogan was “Every Man a King.” He even had a song written called “Every Man a King.” Yes, he had his own theme song. It’s actually a really catchy song, which is too bad because I’m not a huge Huey Long supporter. Randy Newman actually recorded a version of the song on his album Good Old Boys. We watched a documentary on him in class, and it was disturbing how like Hitler he was in his speaking style. As Gillian likes to say, “He ran Louisiana like Hitler ran Nazi Germany.” And it’s true.

Long ended up being assassinated in the capitol building he had built and that created what Prof. Striner likes discussing as important historical What If’s. I’m personally glad that this country never had to see him as president, because it was such a vulnerable time, I could easily have seen him leading the country down the merry road to fascism.

I think that that is it for this week’s Profile in History. Tune in next week and have a party with Catherine the Great (and her horse isn’t invited…).

Appologies

2007-11-07T22:09:00.000-05:00

I know that I am supposed to post tonight about our favorite almost dictator, Huey P. Long. I had a nice post written. However, when I tried to post it, there were issues and, needless to say, it is gone. At this point, I do not feel like attempting to salvage it right now. So I'm afraid that you will have to wait until tomorrow morning to find out more.

Brenna

A Tale of Two Lectures, by Charles Dickens

2007-11-06T20:46:00.000-05:00

At long last (again), I have returned to the land of blog. Seeing as I can never manage to play my violin or answer my emails, I'm not sure why I thought being a co-blogger was a good idea. Oh, well. And if you are reading this and are one of the people to whom I owe an email, I'm slowly but surely working on them.

Anyway, an odd twist of events brought me to two phenomenal lectures today of a historical nature, and I thought I'd share them. My discourse will probably be long, which is fitting, since Dickens is one of my favorite writers. Let me first say that if I have misremembered anything, please feel free to comment to set me straight.

This evening, I attended the annual Conrad M. Wingate Memorial Lecture, which this year featured Dr. Vladislav Zubok, Associate Professor of History at Temple University (for more info about him, visit his Meet the Faculty page on Temple's website). His lecture was entitled, The Soviet Union: America's Worst Enemy? and it was extremely fascinating. His main points of consideration were: why did the Cold War start?, why did it end the way it did?, and that the USSR was actually America's best enemy.

Dr. Zubok talked about how Stalin was the cause of the Cold War. At the end of World War II, which was an incredibly devastating war for the USSR, the Soviet people generally wanted peace. They did not want to engage in another war because they were exhausted from the Great Patriotic War against the Nazis. Stalin also found himself in the midst of a Cold War of sorts internally; the war had brought liberal, Western ideas to Russia, and he feared losing his own power to the notion of a better life. He actually had to work to convert his leadership, military, and then the Soviet people back to his version of Socialism. But then he noticed that Britain had access to oil drawn from the oil fields of southern Iran (as part of their sphere of influence) and he wanted it. The Americans then weighed in and told Stalin to stay out of Iran, pushing the Iranian question to the top of the agenda for the newly formed United Nations. And thus began the Cold War between the most powerful country and strongest economy in the world and the exhausted USSR whose people didn't want another conflict, even if they had the means to take on the strongest economy in the world.

After Stalin was Khruschev, and it was under his leadership that the Soviets finally reached the technological capacity, marked by Sputnik, to even reach the US with weapons. Khruschev was also generally well liked by Americans. However, in 1962, Soviet missiles appeared in Cuba. American history generally states that they were poised for attack, being only a few miles off of Florida, but, according to Dr. Zubok, the Soviets sent the missiles there to deter the US from attacking them. Khruschev knew in advance that Kennedy planned to make a speech on October 22, and he was terrified that it would be a declaration of war. Because the USSR still did not want to go to war with the United States.

Dr. Zubok commented that no one predicted that the Soviet Union would collapse in the way that it did. By the 1980s, the food lines and other shortages (like toilet paper) were called "temporary difficulties," but they didn't go away. In Dr. Zubok's estimation, Gorbachev was not able to effectively lead the USSR because he didn't have a clear sense of direction and he could not hold the country together. The USSR was the best enemy America could have had, because over the course of the Cold War, both sides had a diplomatic and political understanding and knew what the rules of engagement were, even when they broke those rules. Americans were also provided with a profound sense of identity and a black and white understanding of the world, all of which are lacking in today's war against terror.

I was really glad I was able to go to Dr. Zubok's lecture, and I think I might have to read his book, A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev. There were many interesting questions posed after the lecture; the question I had but didn't get a chance to ask was as follows: in light of the misperceptions of both sides, were there any ways in which the Cold War could have progressed differently? Feel free to weigh in on that one.

The second lecture I went to today was actually a lunch time lecture sponsored by the Literary House as part of their series, Storytelling in the Digital Age. Today's talk was given by our own Prof. Corey Olsen, English professor, expert in medieval literature, and currently my professor for Foundations of Western Literature. His talk was entitled Breaking the Silence: Literature Before the Book. From his lecture, I think we can say that some of what we believe about the Middle Ages is true: books were rare and expensive, and there were very few literate people. However, as Prof. Olsen explained, the people had access to ideas, and literacy was not necessarily synonymous with education, the possession of ideas, or even of civilization. He showed us some images from the stained glass windows of Canterbury Cathedral that illustrated popular Bible stories, such as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and even complex theological ideas, exemplified by a panel showing the crucifixion of Christ, the (almost) sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, and Joshua and the other Israelite spy bringing food back from the Promised Land to show the Israelites before they entered. These latter two images become typologically related to the Crucifixion, as the sacrifice of Isaac anticipates the sacrifice of Christ, and the association with Joshua, the one who led Israel into the Promised Land, shows how through the cross, Christ leads His people into the Promised Land (and as an added bonus, Joshua and Jesus are the same name in Hebrew). Medieval people were very well aware of these teachings, gaining this awareness namely through homilies preached to them.

Even though books were rare, reading and books were a huge part of Medieval culture. In monasteries, one monk would read to the rest of the monks while they worked, and in families, one family member, usually a daughter, would read to the rest of her family; therefore, people were aware of textual ideas. Reading aloud was the preferred method; Prof. Olsen pointed to St. Augustine's account in Confessions of St. Ambrose, who would read silently so as not to invite commentary and questioning from listeners and in order to read a greater number of books. This practice of silent reading was out of the ordinary, and Prof. Olsen explained the great effort to which Augustine went to explain Ambrose's actions. Reading was arguably a much more intellectual effort in the Middle Ages, as punctuation and paragraphing were not standardized yet, and readers were lucky to have even spaces between words. Therefore, readers had to study the texts before they read them aloud in order to make sense of the text and to prepare an effective reading.

Finally, Prof. Olsen gave us two examples from Sir Thomas Malory's writings to show us some of the challenges to understanding the texts and some of the literary conventions used. Repetition was a major device, and Malory used repetition of ideas to remind readers of details as he set his scene and to connect various points and to introduce new ideas into his schema. We also looked at the different ways the text could be interpreted, as the lack of punctuation requires us to determine where clauses and ideas end, and there are always some different options. Thus, it is up to us to distill the author's meaning and to insert breaks accordingly.

Prof. Olsen's lecture was wonderful and was filled with humor, as his lectures always are. I'm really glad I was able to go to both of these lectures; it made for a busy day, but it was well worth it, as my busy days usually turn out to be. Tomorrow, Brenna will probably enlighten the blog with a discourse on Huey Long, and at some point I will return to relate the tale of our adventure to a conference a few weeks back. It's a wonderful story, and it will be illustrated! Stay tuned!

Ten Page